Myers v. People of State
| Decision Date | 31 January 1873 |
| Citation | 67 Ill. 503,1873 WL 8248 |
| Parties | BALTIS MYERSv.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Bureau county; the Hon. EDWIN S. LELAND, Judge, presiding.
This was an information, filed by the State's Attorney of Bureau county, in the county court of that county, against Baltis Myers, for selling liquor.
At the August term, 1872, of the county court, the State's Attorney obtained leave of court to file the following affidavit:
+----------------------------+
¦“STATE OF ILLINOIS, ¦)¦ ¦
+--------------------+-+-----¦
¦ ¦)¦ss. ¦
+--------------------+-+-----¦
¦Bureau County. ¦)¦ ¦
+----------------------------+
Fletcher Pomeroy, being duly sworn, on oath states that Baltis Myers, on the 1st day of August, A. D. 1872, and on divers days before and after said date, at and within the county of Bureau and State of Illinois, divers quantities of intoxicating liquors did sell, to be drank in, upon or about the premises where the same was sold, without having first obtained a license to keep a grocery, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the People of the State of Illinois.
FLETCHER POMEROY.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 28th day of August, A. D. 1872.
J. W. TEMPLETON, Co. Cl'k.”
Upon the filing of this complaint, the county court granted leave to the State's Attorney to file an information against Myers for selling intoxicating liquors without license, and thereupon the State's Attorney filed the same, consisting of eight counts. The following is a copy of the first:
+----------------------------+
¦“STATE OF ILLINOIS, ¦)¦ ¦
+--------------------+-+-----¦
¦ ¦)¦ss. ¦
+--------------------+-+-----¦
¦Bureau County. ¦)¦ ¦
+----------------------------+
In the County Court of Bureau county. Of the August term, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-two.
Be it remembered, that Charles C. Warren, county attorney for the county of Bureau and State of Illinois, and who prosecutes in this behalf in the name and by the authority of the People of the State of Illinois, in his own proper person, comes now here into court, and, in the name and by the authority of the people aforesaid, gives the court to be informed and understand that Baltis Myers, on the 1st day of July, A. D. 1872, at and within the county of Bureau and State of Illinois, and without him, the said Baltis Myers, having first obtained a license to keep a grocery, a certain quantity of intoxicating liquor did sell, to be drank in, upon and about the building or premises where sold, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the People of the State of Illinois.” The other counts were all similar, except as to the dates of the sales. The information was signed “Charles C. Warren, county attorney,” and the witnesses names were indorsed thereon the same as if it had been an indictment.
Mr. J. J. HERRON, for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. JAMES K. EDSALL, Attorney General, for the People.
Under the provisions of the act to increase the jurisdiction of county courts, (see Sess. Laws 1872, p. 325,) an information was filed in the county court of Bureau county by the prosecuting attorney, against Myers, upon leave granted on affidavit, for alleged violations of the first section of the act entitled “An act to provide against the evils resulting from the sale of intoxicating liquors in the State of Illinois,” approved January 13, 1872. Laws 1872, p. 552.
The defendant was tried upon the charges so preferred, and found guilty. He took an appeal, under the provisions of the third section of the first mentioned act, to the circuit court of Bureau county, where the judgment of the county court was affirmed, and the case was thereupon brought to this court by writ of error. The error assigned which is principally relied upon, is, that the act to increase the jurisdiction of county courts is unconstitutional, on the ground that it does not apply to all the county courts in the State.
Section 18 of article 6 of the constitution, is as follows:
Here is distinctly defined, courts of a particular class or grade.
The 29th section of the same article contains the following provision: “All laws relating to courts shall be general and of uniform operation; and the organization, jurisdiction, powers, proceedings and practice of all courts of the same class or grade, so far as regulated by law, and the force and effect of the process, judgments and decrees of such courts, severally, shall be uniform.”
The first section of the act to increase the jurisdiction of county courts, above referred to, declares, “that, in addition to the jurisdiction now conferred by law on the county courts of this State, they shall hereafter have jurisdiction in the following cases:
1. Concurrent jurisdiction with the circuit court in all that class of cases wherein justices of the peace now or hereafter may have jurisdiction, where the amount claimed, or the value of the property in controversy, shall not exceed $500.
2. Concurrent jurisdiction in all cases of appeals from justices of the peace and police magistrates,” etc.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Peoples Gas Light & Coke Co. v. Slattery
-
Drummond v. State
... ... The ... framers of the Constitution intended that the Legislature ... consult the necessities of the people and the expediency ... therefor, so as not to involve the judicial system in ... confusion and mar its efficiency to serve the people ... would be to that extent to strip the circuit court of its ... constitutional original jurisdiction, Myers v ... People, 67 Ill. 503; from which it follows that the one ... and only constitutional method of effectuating the transfer ... is for the ... ...
-
Village of Chatham v. County of Sangamon
...municipality" would apply to all counties, including the County (65 ILCS 5/11-15.1-2.1(a) (West 1994)). See Myers v. People, 67 Ill. 503, 508-09, 1873 WL 8248 (1873) ("It is a general rule, and one founded in good sense, that, if one part of a statute be unconstitutional, but it stands so i......
-
People ex rel. Rusch v. White
...pointed out would not exist.’ The act held valid in so far as it related to county courts, though not as to probate courts. In Meyers v. People, 67 Ill. 503, this court considered the act of 1872 (Laws 1871-72, p. 325), increasing the jurisdiction of county courts, and it was held that the ......