enacting clause in West Virginia

1982The validity of this approach in West Virginia is questioned by the appellant in light of the holdings in State v. Harless, 105 W.Va. 480 , 143 S.E. 151 (1927); State v. Taylor, 95 W.Va. 518 , 121 S.E. 573 (1924); State v. Harr, 77 W.Va. 637 , 88 S.E. 44 (1916); and State v. Richards, 32 W.Va. 348 , 9 S.E. 245 (1889), that a warrant or indictment charging a statutory offense which fails to negative the exceptions contained in the enacting clause of the statute is fatally defective.

1982The validity of this approach in West Virginia is questioned by the appellant in light of the holdings in State v. Harless, 105 W.Va. 480 , 143 S.E. 151 (1927); State v. Taylor, 95 W.Va. 518 , 121 S.E. 573 (1924); State v. Harr, 77 W.Va. 637 , 88 S.E. 44 (1916); and State v. Richards, 32 W.Va. 348 , 9 S.E. 245 (1889), that a warrant or indictment charging a statutory offense which fails to negative the exceptions contained in the enacting clause of the statute is fatally defective.

1982The validity of this approach in West Virginia is questioned by the appellant in light of the holdings in State v. Harless, 105 W.Va. 480 , 143 S.E. 151 (1927); State v. Taylor, 95 W.Va. 518 , 121 S.E. 573 (1924); State v. Harr, 77 W.Va. 637 , 88 S.E. 44 (1916); and State v. Richards, 32 W.Va. 348 , 9 S.E. 245 (1889), that a warrant or indictment charging a statutory offense which fails to negative the exceptions contained in the enacting clause of the statute is fatally defective.

1982The validity of this approach in West Virginia is questioned by the appellant in light of the holdings in State v. Harless, 105 W.Va. 480 , 143 S.E. 151 (1927); State v. Taylor, 95 W.Va. 518 , 121 S.E. 573 (1924); State v. Harr, 77 W.Va. 637 , 88 S.E. 44 (1916); and State v. Richards, 32 W.Va. 348 , 9 S.E. 245 (1889), that a warrant or indictment charging a statutory offense which fails to negative the exceptions contained in the enacting clause of the statute is fatally defective.

1991Simpkins v. Harvey, 172 W.Va. at 317 , 305 S.E.2d at 273 , we stated: "In traditional terms, an ‘exception’ is said to restrict the enacting clause of the statute to a particular case, while a ‘proviso’ is said to remove special cases from the general enactment and provide for them specially. 1A Sutherland Statutory Construction § 20.22 (1972).” 6 .

1991Simpkins v. Harvey, 172 W.Va. at 317 , 305 S.E.2d at 273 , we stated: "In traditional terms, an ‘exception’ is said to restrict the enacting clause of the statute to a particular case, while a ‘proviso’ is said to remove special cases from the general enactment and provide for them specially. 1A Sutherland Statutory Construction § 20.22 (1972).” 6 .

1982The validity of this approach in West Virginia is questioned by the appellant in light of the holdings in State v. Harless, 105 W.Va. 480 , 143 S.E. 151 (1927); State v. Taylor, 95 W.Va. 518 , 121 S.E. 573 (1924); State v. Harr, 77 W.Va. 637 , 88 S.E. 44 (1916); and State v. Richards, 32 W.Va. 348 , 9 S.E. 245 (1889), that a warrant or indictment charging a statutory offense which fails to negative the exceptions contained in the enacting clause of the statute is fatally defective.

1982The validity of this approach in West Virginia is questioned by the appellant in light of the holdings in State v. Harless, 105 W.Va. 480 , 143 S.E. 151 (1927); State v. Taylor, 95 W.Va. 518 , 121 S.E. 573 (1924); State v. Harr, 77 W.Va. 637 , 88 S.E. 44 (1916); and State v. Richards, 32 W.Va. 348 , 9 S.E. 245 (1889), that a warrant or indictment charging a statutory offense which fails to negative the exceptions contained in the enacting clause of the statute is fatally defective.

1982The validity of this approach in West Virginia is questioned by the appellant in light of the holdings in State v. Harless, 105 W.Va. 480 , 143 S.E. 151 (1927); State v. Taylor, 95 W.Va. 518 , 121 S.E. 573 (1924); State v. Harr, 77 W.Va. 637 , 88 S.E. 44 (1916); and State v. Richards, 32 W.Va. 348 , 9 S.E. 245 (1889), that a warrant or indictment charging a statutory offense which fails to negative the exceptions contained in the enacting clause of the statute is fatally defective.

1982The validity of this approach in West Virginia is questioned by the appellant in light of the holdings in State v. Harless, 105 W.Va. 480 , 143 S.E. 151 (1927); State v. Taylor, 95 W.Va. 518 , 121 S.E. 573 (1924); State v. Harr, 77 W.Va. 637 , 88 S.E. 44 (1916); and State v. Richards, 32 W.Va. 348 , 9 S.E. 245 (1889), that a warrant or indictment charging a statutory offense which fails to negative the exceptions contained in the enacting clause of the statute is fatally defective.

1977Recognizances of novel disseisin, mort d'ancestor, and darrein presentment shall be taken only in their proper counties, and in this manner: We or, if We be absent from the realm, Our Chief Justiciary shall send two justiciaries through each county four times a year, and they, together with four knights elected out of each county by the people thereof, shall hold the said assizes in the county court, on the day and in the place where that court meets." [1] In 1976 this section was again amended by the Legislature adding the words "or collection for or prevention of damage" before the words "to

1936State v. Tapit, 52 W.

1932In Beale v. Pankey, 107 Va. 215 , 57 S. E. 661 , where a like question was involved, the court said: “A legislative act described in its title as an act to amend and re-enact a certain former act, but making no reference in the enacting clause to the act referred to in the title, and not purporting to re-enact and publish at length the act sought to be amended, is invalid because not conforming to constitutional requirements that no law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title, and that no law shall be amended with reference to its title but shall be re-enacte

1932In Beale v. Pankey, 107 Va. 215 , 57 S. E. 661 , where a like question was involved, the court said: “A legislative act described in its title as an act to amend and re-enact a certain former act, but making no reference in the enacting clause to the act referred to in the title, and not purporting to re-enact and publish at length the act sought to be amended, is invalid because not conforming to constitutional requirements that no law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title, and that no law shall be amended with reference to its title but shall be re-enacte

1924State v. Welch, 69 W.

1922In the prior case of Sutton v. People, 145 Ill. 279 , as noted in the Schramm case, the indictment charged the offense as at common law, that is as having been committed forcibly and against the will of the female, and it was held that the averment of the defendant’s age was mere surplusage and need not be proved by the people, and that his age if under fourteen years was matter of defense.

1889Hill’s Case, 5 Gratt. 682.