enacting clause in Georgia

1966Under decisions exemplified by Dukes v. State, 9 Ga. App. 537 (2) ( 71 SE 921 ); Holloway v. State, 90 Ga. App. 86 (1) ( 82 SE2d 235 ); Rumph v. State, 119 Ga. 121, 123 ( 45 SE 1002 ); and Elkins v. State, 13 Ga. 435 , where exceptions to the operation of a penal Act are stated in the enacting clause it is necessary to negative them in an indictment or accusation, in order that the descriptions of the crime may, in all respects, correspond with the statute.

1938In view of section 1 of the small-loan act (Ga. L. 1920, p. 215; Code, § 25-301), which contains the enacting clause that “No person, partnership, or corporation shall engage in the business of making loans of money . . in the amount or to the value of $300 or less, and charge, contract for, or receive a greater rate of interest than eight per centum per annum therefor, except as authorized by this chapter [act], and without first obtaining a license from the superintendent of banks,” and section 17 (Code, § 25-317), that “Except as authorized by this chapter, no person, partnership, or corpor

1968This is an appeal “from all of the rulings of August 31, 1967 ... by the trial judge.” None of the rulings appealed from is such as will support an appeal under Section 1 of the Appellate Practice Act of 1965 (Ga. L. 1965, p. 18); and since the Act of 1967 (Ga. L. 1967, p. 220), amendatory of the Appellate Practice Act of 1965, Section 1 of which provided for appeal from other judgments not otherwise subject to appeal when the trial judge certifies the importance of immediate review, has been held unconstitutional because of the absence of an enacting clause (Joiner v. State, 223 Ga. 367 ( 155

1968This is an appeal “from all of the rulings of August 31, 1967 ... by the trial judge.” None of the rulings appealed from is such as will support an appeal under Section 1 of the Appellate Practice Act of 1965 (Ga. L. 1965, p. 18); and since the Act of 1967 (Ga. L. 1967, p. 220), amendatory of the Appellate Practice Act of 1965, Section 1 of which provided for appeal from other judgments not otherwise subject to appeal when the trial judge certifies the importance of immediate review, has been held unconstitutional because of the absence of an enacting clause (Joiner v. State, 223 Ga. 367 ( 155

1967This case was later distinguished in Fowler v. Stone, 149 Ga. 125 ( 99 SE 291 ), because the Act there involved was held to contain an enacting clause.

1967Appellant cites Walden v. Town of Whigham, 120 Ga. 646 ( 48 SE 159 ) and Fowler v. Stone, 149 Ga. 125 ( 99 SE 291 ).

1967This case was later distinguished in Fowler v. Stone, 149 Ga. 125 ( 99 SE 291 ), because the Act there involved was held to contain an enacting clause.

1967Appellant cites Walden v. Town of Whigham, 120 Ga. 646 ( 48 SE 159 ) and Fowler v. Stone, 149 Ga. 125 ( 99 SE 291 ).

1966Under decisions exemplified by Dukes v. State, 9 Ga. App. 537 (2) ( 71 SE 921 ); Holloway v. State, 90 Ga. App. 86 (1) ( 82 SE2d 235 ); Rumph v. State, 119 Ga. 121, 123 ( 45 SE 1002 ); and Elkins v. State, 13 Ga. 435 , where exceptions to the operation of a penal Act are stated in the enacting clause it is necessary to negative them in an indictment or accusation, in order that the descriptions of the crime may, in all respects, correspond with the statute.

1966Under decisions exemplified by Dukes v. State, 9 Ga. App. 537 (2) ( 71 SE 921 ); Holloway v. State, 90 Ga. App. 86 (1) ( 82 SE2d 235 ); Rumph v. State, 119 Ga. 121, 123 ( 45 SE 1002 ); and Elkins v. State, 13 Ga. 435 , where exceptions to the operation of a penal Act are stated in the enacting clause it is necessary to negative them in an indictment or accusation, in order that the descriptions of the crime may, in all respects, correspond with the statute.

1951Nor is it necessary for the indictment to negative any of the exceptions contained in the.statute, such exceptions not’being inserted in the enacting clause which defines and describes the offense.” Williams v. State, 89 Ga. 483 ( 15 S. E. 552 ).

1951Nor is it necessary *310 for the indictment to negative any of the exceptions contained in the statute, such exceptions not being inserted in the enacting clause which defines and describes the offense." Williams v. State, 89 Ga. 483 ( 15 S. E. 552 ).

1951Nor is it necessary for the indictment to negative any of the exceptions contained in the.statute, such exceptions not’being inserted in the enacting clause which defines and describes the offense.” Williams v. State, 89 Ga. 483 ( 15 S. E. 552 ).

1951Nor is it necessary *310 for the indictment to negative any of the exceptions contained in the statute, such exceptions not being inserted in the enacting clause which defines and describes the offense." Williams v. State, 89 Ga. 483 ( 15 S. E. 552 ).

1938In view of section 1 of the small-loan act (Ga. L. 1920, p. 215; Code, § 25-301), which contains the enacting clause that “No person, partnership, or corporation shall engage in the business of making loans of money . . in the amount or to the value of $300 or less, and charge, contract for, or receive a greater rate of interest than eight per centum per annum therefor, except as authorized by this chapter [act], and without first obtaining a license from the superintendent of banks,” and section 17 (Code, § 25-317), that “Except as authorized by this chapter, no person, partnership, or corpor

1938In view of section 1 of the small-loan act (Ga. L. 1920, p. 215; Code, § 25-301), which contains the enacting clause that “No person, partnership, or corporation shall engage in the business of making loans of money . . in the amount or to the value of $300 or less, and charge, contract for, or receive a greater rate of interest than eight per centum per annum therefor, except as authorized by this chapter [act], and without first obtaining a license from the superintendent of banks,” and section 17 (Code, § 25-317), that “Except as authorized by this chapter, no person, partnership, or corpor

1998If what follows after the enacting clause is definitely related to what is expressed in the title, has a natural connection, and relates to the main object of legislation, and is not in conflict therewith, there is no infringement of the constitutional inhibition” [Cit.] Mead Corp. v. Collins, 258 Ga. 239 (1) ( 367 SE2d 790 ) (1988).

1998If what follows after the enacting clause is definitely related to what is expressed in the title, has a natural connection, and relates to the main object of legislation, and is not in conflict therewith, there is no infringement of the constitutional inhibition” [Cit.] Mead Corp. v. Collins, 258 Ga. 239 (1) ( 367 SE2d 790 ) (1988).

1976Lee v. City of Jesup, 222 Ga. 530 (1) ( 150 SE2d 836 ) (1966). 2.

1976Lee v. City of Jesup, 222 Ga. 530 (1) ( 150 SE2d 836 ) (1966). 2.

1967Dept. v. Hicks, 115 Ga. App. 703 .

1966Under decisions exemplified by Dukes v. State, 9 Ga. App. 537 (2) ( 71 SE 921 ); Holloway v. State, 90 Ga. App. 86 (1) ( 82 SE2d 235 ); Rumph v. State, 119 Ga. 121, 123 ( 45 SE 1002 ); and Elkins v. State, 13 Ga. 435 , where exceptions to the operation of a penal Act are stated in the enacting clause it is necessary to negative them in an indictment or accusation, in order that the descriptions of the crime may, in all respects, correspond with the statute.

1966Under decisions exemplified by Dukes v. State, 9 Ga. App. 537 (2) ( 71 SE 921 ); Holloway v. State, 90 Ga. App. 86 (1) ( 82 SE2d 235 ); Rumph v. State, 119 Ga. 121, 123 ( 45 SE 1002 ); and Elkins v. State, 13 Ga. 435 , where exceptions to the operation of a penal Act are stated in the enacting clause it is necessary to negative them in an indictment or accusation, in order that the descriptions of the crime may, in all respects, correspond with the statute.

1956Lombard v. Trustees of Young Men’s Library Association Fund, 73 Ga. 322 .

1954Elkins v. State, 13 Ga. 435 ; Isom v. State, 83 Ga. 378 ( 9 S. E. 1051 ); Rumph v. State, 119 Ga. 121 ( 45 S. E. 1002 ); Ferguson v. State, 1 Ga. App. 841 ( 58 S. E. 57 ); Dukes v. State, 9 Ga. App. 537 ( 71 S. E. 921 ).

1954Elkins v. State, 13 Ga. 435 ; Isom v. State, 83 Ga. 378 ( 9 S. E. 1051 ); Rumph v. State, 119 Ga. 121 ( 45 S. E. 1002 ); Ferguson v. State, 1 Ga. App. 841 ( 58 S. E. 57 ); Dukes v. State, 9 Ga. App. 537 ( 71 S. E. 921 ).

1954Elkins v. State, 13 Ga. 435 ; Isom v. State, 83 Ga. 378 ( 9 S. E. 1051 ); Rumph v. State, 119 Ga. 121 ( 45 S. E. 1002 ); Ferguson v. State, 1 Ga. App. 841 ( 58 S. E. 57 ); Dukes v. State, 9 Ga. App. 537 ( 71 S. E. 921 ).

1954Elkins v. State, 13 Ga. 435 ; Isom v. State, 83 Ga. 378 ( 9 S. E. 1051 ); Rumph v. State, 119 Ga. 121 ( 45 S. E. 1002 ); Ferguson v. State, 1 Ga. App. 841 ( 58 S. E. 57 ); Dukes v. State, 9 Ga. App. 537 ( 71 S. E. 921 ).

1939In Williams v. State, 89 Ga. 483 ( 15 S. E. 552 ), it was held that it was not “necessary for an indictment to negative any of the exceptions contained in the statute, such exceptions not being inserted in the enacting clause which defines and describes the offense.” See also Atlanta Southern Dental College v. State, 51 Ga. App. 379 ( 180 S. E. 620 ).

1939In Williams v. State, 89 Ga. 483 ( 15 S. E. 552 ), it was held that it was not “necessary for an indictment to negative any of the exceptions contained in the statute, such exceptions not being inserted in the enacting clause which defines and describes the offense.” See also Atlanta Southern Dental College v. State, 51 Ga. App. 379 ( 180 S. E. 620 ).

1938In view of section 1 of the small-loan act (Ga. L. 1920, p. 215; Code, § 25-301), which contains the enacting clause that “No person, partnership, or corporation shall engage in the business of making loans of money . . in the amount or to the value of $300 or less, and charge, contract for, or receive a greater rate of interest than eight per centum per annum therefor, except as authorized by this chapter [act], and without first obtaining a license from the superintendent of banks,” and section 17 (Code, § 25-317), that “Except as authorized by this chapter, no person, partnership, or corpor

1938In view of section 1 of the small-loan act (Ga. L. 1920, p. 215; Code, § 25-301), which contains the enacting clause that “No person, partnership, or corporation shall engage in the business of making loans of money . . in the amount or to the value of $300 or less, and charge, contract for, or receive a greater rate of interest than eight per centum per annum therefor, except as authorized by this chapter [act], and without first obtaining a license from the superintendent of banks,” and section 17 (Code, § 25-317), that “Except as authorized by this chapter, no person, partnership, or corpor

1909Uniformly, under all these laws, the Supreme Court and this court in numerous decisions had been holding that the test in each case was: “Is the liquor capable of being used as a beverage, and, if drunk to excess, will it intoxicate?” See Snider v. State, 81 Ga. 757 ( 7 S. E. 631 , 12 Am.

1908Elkins v. State, 13 Ga. 435 ; Hester v. State, 17 Ga. 130 ; Sharpe v. State, 17 Ga. 290 ; Jordan v. State, 22 Ga. 555 ; Hicks v. State, 108 Ga. 749 ; Kitchens v. State, 116 Ga. 847 ; Rex. v. Pemberton, 2 Burr. 1036; Anderson v. State, 2 Ga. App. 20 , and cit.