State v. Schwartz

Citations

• 119 La. 290
• 44 So. 20
• 1907 La. LEXIS 470

Syllabus

<p>1. Statutes — Title oe Act — Preservation oe Non-Game Birds — Notice.</p> <p>The object of the act is sufficiently expressed by its title. The prohibition is not to kill non-game birds. It is the one object of the act. Those who buy them, and thereby hold out an encouragement to kill them, are sufficiently warned by a title expressive of intent to protect them in the only way possible to protect them. Not to kill them is the only protection needful or intended. Those who buy the plumes must be held to know that by buying them they hold out inducement to hunt them and shoot them. The act of buying them is included within the terms of the prohibition; for, next to those who kill, the principal cause for killing is the consideration received for the killing.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 44, Statutes, §§ 135, 158-160.]</p> <p>2. Commerce — Interstate Commerce — Sale oe Birds — Police Power.</p> <p>The statute is not violative of the interstate law. The state has the right, in accordance with her police power, if necessary to protect her birds, to adopt a statute which prohibits their sale.</p> <p>3. Game — Protection oe Non-Game Birds— Within Legislative Authority.</p> <p>The legality of game laws has been decreed in a number of jurisdictions, including the Supreme Court of the United States. Although for the protection of non-game birds the Legislature has adopted drastic measures, the statute does not exceed constitutional limitation.</p> <p>[Ed, Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig, voi. 24, Game, §§ 2, 3.]</p> <p>4. Criminal Law — Excessive Penalty.</p> <p>The fine imposed is not excessive to an extent of rendering it illegal.</p> <p>5. Same — Appeal—Review.</p> <p>Legality or constitutionality of the law presents the extent of the issue. The question of guilt or innocence presents an issue of fact not brought up for review.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>