TODD v. THE STATE

Supreme Court of Georgia1949-06-13No. No. 16659

205 Ga. 363

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court reversed the judgment and held that the Game and Fish Commission's failure to post the regulation at the courthouse door and file a copy with the ordinary at least thirty days before the effective date prevented the regulation from becoming effective, making the defendant's conviction invalid.

The State Game and Fish Commission adopted fishing regulations in November 1947 that prohibited the use of power-drawn nets in inland and salt waters, effective December 15, 1947. The defendant was charged with violating this regulation. However, the commission posted notice of the regulation and filed a copy with the county ordinary only on December 13, 1947—just two days before the effective date—rather than the thirty days in advance required by Georgia law.

The court examined whether this failure to comply with the statutory notice requirement affected the validity of the regulation. Although evidence of the violation itself was sufficient to support a guilty verdict, the court focused on the defendant's plea in abatement challenging the regulation's legal effect. The court held that the thirty-day advance notice requirement is a condition precedent to a regulation becoming effective, and the undisputed evidence showed this requirement was not met. The court rejected the State's argument that public officers are presumed to perform their duties, finding that when a specific fact is directly challenged and undisputed evidence proves it did not occur, no such presumption applies.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether advance notice and filing requirements for administrative regulations are conditions precedent to effectiveness
Whether public officer presumptions apply when evidence directly contradicts the performance of a statutory duty
Scope of delegated authority to administrative agencies and compliance with statutory conditions

Procedural posture

The defendant pleaded in abatement to challenge the validity of the regulation underlying the indictment, which the trial court overruled, resulting in conviction on undisputed evidence of violation.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

WAvtT,-Justice.

It is conceded that the evidence adduced upon the trial was sufficient to sustain the judgment finding the defendant guilty. This court is therefore concerned only with the question raised by the plea in abatement.

The indictment in this case was based upon the provisions of the act of the General Assembly (Ga. L. 1943, p. 128, Code (Ann. Supp.), § 45-146), which provides: “The Commission shall have power to fix bag limits and to fix open and closed seasons, on a State-wide, ‘regional or local basis, as they may find to be appropriate, ’Wnd) to regulate the manner and method of taking, transporting,) storing and using birds, game, fur-bearing animals, fish, shellfish,--crustaceans, reptiles and amphibians, by rules and regulations: Provided, that the Commission shall post at the courthouse door of the county or counties that will be affected a complete copy of such rule or regulation certified by the chairman of. the ¡Commission and also file, an additional certified copy thereof in the office of the ordinary of the county or counties affected, at least. 30.days, before the effective date of such rule of regulation,” .Sectipn 20 of the act (Code, Ann. Supp., § 45-153) provides, as, follows: “Any person who shall violate any of the rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission under the authority herein granted shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and punishec] $,s, provided by the law of Georgia in cases of misdemeanor.”

•The State Game and Fish Commission on November 10, 1947. adopted’ .“Fishing Regulations,” providing, among other things, “effective .December. 15,. 1947, and continuing in force until changed py-.law or .proclamation, the use of power-drawn nets is prohibited jn. all inland-salt waters of this State.” The defendant was charged with a violation of this rule or regulation.

The evidence disclosed that a copy of this rule or regulation-was posted at the courthouse door and filed in the office of the ordinary on December 13, 1947, this being only two days before the effective date of the rules and regulations. The act of the General- Assembly of 1943, supra, expressly provides that any. rule or regulation adopted by the State Game and Fish Commission must be posted at the courthouse door and filed in the office of the ordinary in the counties to be affected “thirty days before the effective date of such rule or regulation.” That was not done in this case. We think that this requirement is a condition precedent to the regulation becoming effective.

We do not now pass upon the question of whether or not such authority can legally, under our Constitution, be delegated by the General Assembly to the Game and Fish Commission. If such authority can be legally so delegated, certainly it should be strictly construed, and the commission should be required to comply with all requirements. We think that the failure to post the regulations at the courthouse door, and to file a copy in the ordinary’s office 30 days before the effective date of the regulations, was a failure of the commission to comply with the requirements of the act of 1943, supra; and for that reason the regulations never became effective.

It is argued that the fact of posting the notice and filing the copy of the regulations in the ordinary’s office, being a duty required of a public officer, will be presumed under the well-established rule of law that it will be presumed that all public officers will do or did do their duty. The case of Horne v. State, 170 Ga. 638 (153 S. E. 749), is cited. In that case the question, was whether or not the State Game and Fish Commission had published an order once a week for four weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the county in question. There was no evidence on the -question, and this court said it would be presumed that the public officer performed his duty. This court has many times enunciated that principle of law. In the instant case, however, the plea in abatement raised the specific question that the notice was not posted and the copy was not filed in the ordinary’s office as required by the statute. The undisputed evidence disclosed that the notice was not posted nor the copy filed with the ordinary, as required by the statute, “at least 30 days before the effective date of such rule or regulation.” The law will presume, nothing to the contrary appearing, that a public officer performed his duty. But when that fact is expressly challenged, and the evidence without dispute shows that the duty was not performed, the law will not presume that to be true which the uncontradicted evidence discloses not to be true.

Under the well-established rule that a constitutional question will never be decided when the case can be disposed of on other grounds, the constitutional question here raised will not be passed upon. See Powers v. Wren, 198 Ga. 316 (3) (31 S. E. 2d, 713).

From what has been said above, it was error to overrule the plea in abatement, and all that happened thereafter was nugatory.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.