Bessette v. People

• Decision Date: 18 December 1901
• Citation: 193 Ill. 334,62 N.E. 215
• Parties: BESSETTE v. PEOPLE.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

193 Ill. 334

62 N.E. 215

BESSETTE

v.PEOPLE.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 18, 1901.

Error to city court of Aurora; Russell P. Goodwin, Judge.

Edward Bessette was convicted of practicing as a horseshoer without a license, and he brings error. Reversed.John S. Reynolds, for plaintiff in error.

Edward C. Akin, Atty. Gen., and Frank W. Joslyn, State's Atty. (John Kelly, of counsel), for the People.

This is a prosecution, originally instituted against the plaintiff in error before a police magistrate or justice of the peace in the city of Aurora, Kane county, to recover a penalty for failure by plaintiff in error to comply with the provisions of an act entitled ‘An act to insure the better education of practitioners of horseshoeing, and to regulate the practice of horseshoers in the state of Illinois,’ approved June 11, 1897. Laws 1897, p. 233. The trial before the magistrate or justice resulted in finding the plaintiff in error guilty as charged, and the imposition of a fine of $25, and judgment against him for such fine and costs of suit. From this judgment he prosecuted and perfected his appeal to the city court of Aurora. On the retrial of the cause there, a jury was waived by agreement of the parties, and the cause was submitted to the court for trial. It was heard upon a written stipulation of the parties as to the facts. Such stipulation and the ordinance hereinafter referred to constituted all the evidence introduced on the trial. Upon the trial, counsel for plaintiff in error presented to the court a number of propositions to be held as law, calling in question the constitutionality of said act and the effectiveness of the ordinance in question to render the said act applicable to the city of Aurora and binding upon its inhabitants. These propositions of law were all rejected, and marked ‘Refused’ by the court, to which action of the court the plaintiff in error excepted. The city court of Aurora rendered judgment, finding plaintiff in error guilty, and imposing a fine of $25 upon him, and rendering judgment therefor, with costs of suit against him. The present appeal is prosecuted from such judgment. The stipulation as to the facts is substantially as follows: That Edward Bessette is a citizen of Aurora; that he is by trade a horseshoer and general blacksmith and farrier, and has been such for over 5 years last past, and was working at his trade of horseshoeing at Aurora in January and February, 1898, and during that time was employed by one George A. Bulles, the owner, superintendent, and foreman of the shop where Bessette worked; that during said months Bulles was a regular licensed horseshoer under the statute above referred to; that, during said months of January and February, 1898, Bessette had not been examined or licensed to engage in the business of horseshoeing by the board of examiners named in said act; that he was duly notified of the provisions of said act by the secretary of said board; that he was fined by the magistrate or justice of the peace, as above stated, for practicing as a horseshoer in Aurora in January and February, 1898, without first obtaining a license so to do under the provisions of said act; that Aurora is a city of over 10,000 and less than 50,000 inhabitants; that Bessette had been regularly engaged in the horseshoeing business in Aurora for a period of 13 years last past, during which he has conducted a shop of his own, and also been engaged by others in the capacity of a competent horseshoer; that in January and February, 1898, he was employed by Bulles in his shop in Aurora, and practiced as a journeyman horseshoer, and not as an apprentice.

Upon the trial, counsel for the people offered in evidence an ordinance of the city of Aurora, passed November 15, 1897, and approved November 18, 1897, adopting the provisions of said act, and ordaining, in section 1 thereof, ‘that the city of Aurora, which is a city having a population of more than 10,000 inhabitants and less than 50,000 inhabitants, hereby adopts the provisions of an act, passed by the Fortieth general assembly of the state of Illinois, entitled ‘An act to insure the better education of practitioners of horseshoeing, and to regulate the practice of horseshoers in the state of Illinois,’ approved June 11, 1897, in force July 1, 1897, as provided for by section 15 of said act.' This ordinance was objected to by counsel for plaintiff in error as not being effective to render the above-entitled act applicable to Aurora and binding upon its inhabitants; but the court overruled this objection, to which action of the court exception was taken, and a certified copy of the ordinance was then read in evidence. Section 1 of the act above referred to in regard to the practice of horseshoers provides ‘that it shall be unlawful for any person to practice as a horseshoer in this state, unless such person shall have received a license to do so as hereinafter provided.’ Section 2 of the act creates a board of examiners, to consist of four practicing horseshoers and a veterinary surgeon, with the duty of carrying out the provisions of the act; the members of said board to be appointed by the governor, and to hold their offices for five years, with certain exceptions and qualifications. Section 3 provides that the board shall choose from among its members a president, secretary, and treasurer, and shall meet at least once in each year, and as much oftener and at such times and places as it may deem necessary; a majority to constitute a quorum, and the proceedings to be at all times open to public inspection. Section 4 of the act makes it the duty of every person engaged as a horseshoer in the state to cause his or her name and residence to be registered with said board of examiners within six months after the date of the passage of the act, the board to keep a book for that purpose, and to know that the persons so registering are horseshoers; it being provided that ‘every person who shall so register with said board as a horseshoer may continue to practice the same as such without incurring any of the penalties provided for in this act.’ Section 5 provides that no person whose name is not registered on the books of the board as a horseshoer within said time prescribed shall be permitted to practice as a horseshoer in the state until he shall have been duly examined by the board and regularly licensed in accordance with the provisions of the act. Section 6 provides that the necessary qualification to practice as a horseshoer in the state ‘shall be that the applicant has worked four years at the business of horseshoeing and has complied with section 5 of this act.’ Section 7 provides that all persons so desiring may appear before said board at any of its regular meetings and be examined with reference to their knowledge and skill in horseshoeing, and, if the examination shall prove satisfactory to the board, it shall issue to such person or persons a license to practice in the state as a horseshoer. Section 8 provides that the secretary of the board shall issue a license, on the recommendation of two members thereof, to any applicant, upon the presentation by such applicant of the evidence of the necessary qualifications to practice as a horseshoer, and said board may provide such method of examination as it may deem wise, and such temporary license shall remain in force until the next regular meeting of the board occurring after the date of such temporary license, and no longer. Section 9 of said act provides that any person who shall violate its provisions shall be liable to prosecution, and upon conviction may be fined not less than $25, nor more than $200, for each and every offense; all fines recovered to be paid into the common school fund of the county in which the conviction takes place. Section 10 of said act is as follows: ‘In order to carry out the provisions of this act and maintenance of the said board of examiners, the said board of examiners shall charge each person applying to or appearing before them for license to practice as a horseshoer a fee of $5.00, and for each yearly renewal thereafter $2.00, and out of the funds coming into the possession of the said board from the fees so charged, the members of said board shall receive as compensation the sum of $5.00 per diem for each and every day engaged in the discharge of the duties of their office, and all necessary expenses incurred by said board, and no part of the salary of the said board or other expense shall be paid out of the state treasury. All moneys, received in excess of said per diem allowance and other expenses above provided for, shall be held by the treasurer of said board, he giving such bond as the board from time to time shall direct, and shall not be used or expended by him except as ordered by the board, and said board shall make an annual report of its proceedings to the governor by the 15th of December of each and every year, said report to show the names of all the horseshoers, their places of business, and the moneys received and disbursed by them pursuant to this act.’ Section 11 of the act provides that any person or persons, not practical horseshoers, desiring to engage in the business of horseshoeing, will be permitted to do so, providing such person or persons employ as superintendent or foreman of their shoeing establishment a practical horseshoer who has complied with section 7 of this act. Section 12 requires that any person, contracting to serve an apprenticeship at horseshoeing, shall serve for four years, and in addition shall be required (if convenient) to attend a course of lectures each year in some institution devoted to the anatomy of the horses' feet, so that he may obtain for himself a knowledge of the same, etc. Section 13 provides that all persons who have served the apprenticeship of four years, as above prescribed, shall at the expiration thereof appear before the board for examination as to...