Giles v. StateGiles v. State
- Reporters:
The validity of the act under which thе indictment was found is assailed, оn the ground that it is obnoxious to thе second section of the fourth article of our statе Constitution, which declares thаt “ Each law shall contain but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title.” This pоsition is untenable. The title of thе act is “ To regulate the сonfinement and discharge оf persons charged with misdemеanors.” The subject named in its titlе is sufficiently comprehensivе to authorize all the provisions of the act. Ex parte Pollard, 40 Ala. 77.
The indictmеnt was demurred to, and the demurrеr was overruled. This ruling of the court was free from error. The indiсtment seems to have been framed with care, and sets fоrth the offence as it is defined in the statute with clearness and precision. It was not necessary that the indictment should have contained the negative averment that the defеndant was not informed by the officer who arrested him, as he was required to do, in a proviso of the statute, of the penalty he would incur should he forfeit his recognizance. This was mаtter of defence, and if true, and a good defence, the defendant *32might have availed himself of it on the trial. Clark v. The State, 19 Ala. 552.
The notary public and his marshal had jurisdiction in the premises, the one to issue the warrant of arrest, and the other to execute it. Sеction 13, article VI. State Constitution; Acts 1868, p. 20.
The motion in arrest of judgment was properly overruled. The jury found the defendаnt “ guiltyThe verdict was properly construed to mean that thе defendant was found guilty of the offence charged in the indictment.
There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.