City of Chicago v. Ross

• Decision Date: 17 December 1912
• Citation: 257 Ill. 76,100 N.E. 159
• Parties: CITY OF CHICAGO v. ROSS.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

257 Ill. 76

100 N.E. 159

CITY OF CHICAGO

v.ROSS.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 17, 1912.

Error to Municipal Court of Chicago; Henry C. Beitler, Judge.

Action by the City of Chicago against Prof. Ross for a penalty for violation of an ordinance. Judgment quashing the complaint and discharging defendant, and the city brings error. Judgment affirmed.

William H. Sexton, Corp. Counsel, of Chicago (James S. McInerney, Edwin J. Raber, and Henry A. Berger, all of Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

Olsen & Boord, of Chicago, for defendant in error.

HAND, J.

Plaintiff in error commenced this action in the municipal court of the city of Chicago against defendant in error to recover a penalty for the violation of section 1988 of the Municipal Code of the city of Chicago, which reads as follows: ‘Any person or persons who shall obtain money or property from another by fraudulent devices and practices in the name of or by means of spirit mediumship, palmistry, card reading, astrology, seership, or like crafty science, or fortune telling of any kind, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not less than $25 nor more than $100 for each offense.’ A motion was made to quash the complaint upon the ground that the ordinance was void, which motion was allowed, and the defendant in error was discharged. The judge before whom the hearing was had having made a certificate that the validity of said section of said ordinance was involved, and that in his opinion the public interest required that the case be brought direct to this court, a writ of error has been sued out from this court to review the judgment of the municipal court.

[1] The question, therefore, here presented for decision, is: Did the city council of Chicago have power to pass said section 1988? It is agreed between the parties that, if the city council has such power, it derives the same from clause 45 of section 62 of the City and Village Act (Hurd's Stat. 1911, p. 265), which is as follows: ‘Forty-fifth-To suppress bawdy and disorderly houses, houses of ill fame or assignation, within the limits of the city and within three miles of the outer boundaries of the city; and also to suppress gaming and gambling houses, lotteries, and all fraudulent devices and practices, for the purpose of gaining or obtaining money or property; and to prohibit the sale or exhibition of obscene or immoral publications, prints, pictures or illustrations.’

It is apparent, we think, from the clause of the paragraph of the statute just quoted, that power was conferred upon the city council by said clause to pass an ordinance (1) to suppress bawdy and disorderly houses and houses of ill fame and assignation houses; (2) to suppress gaming and gambling houses and lotteries and ‘all fraudulent devices and practices' for the purpose of gaining or obtaining money or property; and (3) to prohibit the sale or exhibition of obscene or immoral publications, prints, pictures, or illustrations. If the ordinance in question is valid, it is clear the power to pass the same arises out of the provision of the statute granting to the city council power to pass an ordinance suppressing ‘fraudulent devices and practices,’ as no power is conferred upon the city council, in express terms, by clause 45 of section 62 to pass section 1988 of the Municipal Code.

[2] The law is well settled that the legislative powers of the municipalities of this state are strictly construed, and, if there is any fair and reasonable doubt as to the existence of...