The Court of Appeals being of the opinion that the act approved August 9, 1919 (Gen. Acts 1919, p. 194), which prohibits live stock from running at large "in all counties having a population of not less than thirty thousand nine hundred and not exceeding thirty thousand nine hundred seventy-five, according to the last or any subsequent federal census," and provides for enforcement and penalties, is in violation of subdivision 23 of section 104, and also of section 105 of the Constitution of Alabama, certifies the question to this court for determination, as provided by law.

The act cannot be a general act, since, as the court judicially knows, it applies to only one county in the state, viz. Lauderdale. Reynolds v. Collier, 204 Ala. 38, 85 So. 465. Being local act, pure and simple, it is manifestly prohibited by Subdivision 23 of section 104 of the Constitution, which forbids the creation of stock law districts by special or local laws, and must therefore be pronounced null and void.

Let this conclusion be duly certified to the Court of Appeals.

All the Justices concur.

The prosecution is grounded on an act of the Legislature approved August 9, 1919, and published in Acts 1919, p. 194. This act is attacked, and held by the lower court to be in violation of section 104, subd. 23, and section 105 of the Constitution, and for that reason the defendant was discharged. In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court, notably Reynolds Co. v. Collier, 204 Ala. 38, 85 So. 465, and many others since that time, and section 104, subd. 23, and section 105 of the Constitution of 1901, and chapter 139, art. 1, of the Code of 1907, we are clearly of the opinion that the act above referred to is unconstitutional and void.

To the Supreme Court of Alabama:

Being of the opinion that the act of the Legislature approved August 9, 1919 (Acts 1919, p. 194), is in violation of the Constitution of this state, for the reasons hereinabove stated, under and by virtue of the provisions of law, we submit the question for your determination.

C.R. BRICKEN, P.J. WM. H. SAMFORD, J. HENRY P. MERRITT, J.

In accordance with the response to the foregoing inquiry, which is made a part of this opinion, the judgment in this case is affirmed.

Affirmed. *Page 514