Reports of Cases Determined by the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri Volume 275

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1918 edition. Excerpt: ...a liquor dealer at Kansas City, Missouri," and were by that company consigned to the said Charles Martin by a freight shipment over the lines'of the said Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company. I. The defendant claims that he was within the proviso of Section 7228, because the liquor which he delivered was ordered for the personal use of Charles Martin to whom he delivered it. The Circuit f, i', pY1, 'j, ';,1:: Court held that section unconstitutional, be cause by its terms the proviso related only to Section 7226; that Section 7226 having been declared unconstitutional by this court in the case of State v. Rawlings, 232 M0. 544, the proviso therefore would fall with the section to which it relates. The reason Section 7226 was declared unconstitutional was because-the subject-matter covered by that section was not clearly expressed in the title of the bill when the Act of 1907 was passed. It is only necessary to refer to the Rawlings case for an explanation of the ruling. Now it is obvious if Section 7228 refers only to Section 7226, then it does not matter for the purpose of this case whether it is unconstitutional or not, because this case arises under Section 7227, which was declared in the Rawlings case to be constitutional. But if 7228 relates to 7227, and provides an exception to the operation of that section as well as of 7226, then to that extent it is not necessarily unconstitutional, for a statute may be unconstitutional as to part of its subject-matter and valid in its application as to other parts. 6 R. C. L., p. 130. It is important, therefore, not only to determine whether Section 7227 applies to this case, but also whether Section 7228 relates, as a proviso, to Section 7227 as well as to...