Pierson v. Baird
Pierson v. Baird
Opinion of the Court
Opinion Toy
The only question raised in this case by tbe bill of exceptions is, did tbe court err by giving oral instructions to the jury? The cause was submitted to tbe jury upon tbe oral instructions of tbe court,
IJpon the 15th day of January, 1849, the legislature passed a law requiring the judges of the district courts, to instruct the petit juries in writing. The act provides, that it shall take effeet from and after its publication in the “Capital Reporter” and “Iowa Republican.” From a note appended to the act, it appears that it was published in one of these papers on the 24th of January, and in the other on the 31st.
This law was of a public nature. The general assembly deeming it of immediate importance had the right under the constitution to order it to be published in newspapers in the state, and when so published, the constitution provides that it shall take effect. Courts are bound ex officio to take judicial notice of the publication, in this way, of all laws of a public nature. The time fixed by the constitution for them to take effect is, by publication, and when so published, they become the laws of the land. This unrestricted provision of the constitution, if resorted to by the general assembly, may and often will j>roduce injustice and oppression, -which it is not within the power of the courts to remedy or prevent; and hence such laws as would be injurious in their tendency, by reason of their not being circulated and known, ought not to take effect in this constitutional manner. Nevertheless the general
In the case before us, the act had been published about one month, and although the court was not aware of its passage, it erred and the case must be reversed.
Judgment reversed.
Reference
- Status
- Published