Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 2).pdf/229

 be invalidated thereby only as to so much thereof as shall not be so expressed.”

(Opinion Filed Oct. 30, 1891.)

ERROR to district court, Cass county; Hon. William B. McConnell, Judge.

Tilly & Stewart, for plaintiff in error. C. A. M. Spencer, Atty. Gen., L. A. Rose, States Atty. for Cass Co., and Chas. A. Pollock, for the State.

John Haas was convicted for an illegal sale of intoxicating liquors, and brings error, claiming the statute prohibiting the sale in certain cases to be unconstitutional. Affirmed.

The facts and authorities cited by counsel are fully set forth in the opinion.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Corliss, C. J. The plaintiff in error, having been convicted under the provisions of chapter 110 of the Laws of 1890 of the offense of keeping and maintaining a place for the sale of intoxicating liquors, and in which such liquors were sold, in violation of law, now and here insists that the judgment of conviction is void because of the unconstitutionality of this act. No other question is raised. The portion of the state constitution alleged to be violated by this law is § 61 of article 2, which provides that “no bill shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in the title, but a bill which violates this provision shall be invalidated thereby only as to so much thereof as shall not be so expressed.” Weare clear that chapter 110 of the Laws of 1890 does not embrace more than one subject. An analysis of this law will make this apparent. Section 1 declares unlawful the manufacture, importing for sale or gift, the keeping for sale, the selling or offering for sale, gift, barter, or trade, of any intoxicating liquers, and prescribes penalties for a violation of the section. By a proviso, registered pharmacists are excepted from the section, and it is provided that they may sell such liquors for medicinal, mechanical, and scientific purposes, and wine for sacramental purposes, as thereinafter provided.