State v. Elder
Citations
- 19 N.M. 393
- 143 P. 482
Syllabus
<p>SYLLABUS.</p> <p>1. There is nothing in the organic act of the Territory of New Mexico, nor in the laws of Congress relating to said Territory prior to its admission to Statehood in 1912, prohibiting the revival of a law which had been repealed by reference to its title in the reviving act, nor the reviving of an Act which had been repealed by repealing the act which repealed the ■original act.</p> <p>P. 399</p> <p>2. Article 4, Section 18, of the Constitution of the State of New Mexico, providing that “no law shall be revised or amended; or the provisions thereof extended by reference to its title only; but each section thereof as revised, amended or extended shall be set out in full,” has no retroative effect and does not apply to nor make invalid or unconstitutional acts or laws passed prior to the admission of New Mexico as a State, which prior act or law does not comply with said section of the Constitution.</p> <p>P. 400</p> <p>3. Article 4, Section 16, of the Constitution of the State of New Mexico providing “The subject of every bill shall be clearly expressed in its title, and no bill embracing more than one ■subject shall be passed, * * *” has no retractive effect and does not apply to nor make invalid or unconstitutional acts ■or laws passed prior to the admission of New Mexico as a State, which act or law so passed prior to the admission does not comply with the requirements of said section of the Con-</p> <p>P. 401</p> <p>4. Article 2, Section 17, of the Constitution of New Mexico-providing that the truth may be given in evidence to the jury as a defense in all criminal libel suits, is in conflict with section 22 of chapter 11 of the Laws of 1889, and repeals the latter-law in so far as the law of 1889 limits the pleading and the. giving in evidence of the truth as a defense in criminal libel suits.</p> <p>P. 402</p> <p>5. Where an indictment for libel alleges that the defendant did publish certain libelous matter, this allegation is sufficient, on d
Judges: Eaynolds
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
4 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Reynolds v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1879-01-18· cited 1,827×
- People v. Central Pacific RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court· 1872-04-15· cited 23×
- Ex parte BurkeCalifornia Supreme Court· 1881-07-15· cited 20×
- State v. BarbeeIndiana Supreme Court· 1852-01-22· cited 19×
- United States v. WilliamsE.D. New York· 1880-07-01· cited 12×
- Potter v. KnowlesCalifornia Supreme Court· 1855-07-01· cited 7×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.