Neifing v. the Town of Pontiac.
| Decision Date | 30 September 1870 |
| Citation | 56 Ill. 172,1870 WL 6499 |
| Parties | MATTHIAS NEIFING et al.v.THE TOWN OF PONTIAC. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Kankakee county; the Hon. CHARLES H. WOOD, Judge, presiding.
This action was brought by the town of Pontiac against appellants, for an alleged violation of section 17, article 7, of its charter, and was tried before a justice of the peace and a fine entered against them by said justice, from which an appeal was taken to the circuit court of Livingston county, and by change of venue was taken to Kankakee county, and tried at the April term of circuit court of said county, 1870, and judgment rendered against appellants by the court (a jury being waived) for $25, and from thence the cause is brought here by appeal.
The cause was tried upon the following stipulation, no other evidence being adduced, to wit:
“It is admitted in this case that defendants, on the 1st day of May, A. D. 1869, at their place of business, made four different sales of lager beer (the same being a malt beer), to one Stacy Stevens, in less quantities than one pint, to wit: by the glass; that the same was drank on the premises aforesaid in the presence of and with the consent of defendants; that said place of business and premises were outside the corporate limits of said town and within three miles, to wit: within forty rods of said corporate limits; that said place of business was a brewery for the sale and manufacture of said beer; that defendants were brewers by occupation at that time, and carried on said business at said brewery, and that said beer so manufactured was sold by defendants by the wholesale, and shipped from said brewery, as well as by retail; and that the beer sold as aforesaid was all manufactured by said defendants as such brewers.”
That said town of Pontiac was incorporated under the general incorporation laws of Illinois, and continued to act thereunder until the passage of the law approved February 14, 1865, entitled “an act to extend the corporate powers of the town of Pontiac,” since which time it has continued to act under the last named act.
That portion of section 17, article 7, upon which this suit is brought, reads as follows: “And no person shall be permitted to bring into the town, or keep about his, her or their premises, saloon, cellar, dwelling-house, out-house or in any other place in said town, or within three miles thereof, any of the above-named drinks, liquors or intoxicating beverages, for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State of Illinois v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.
...purpose, but the object was to prevent them from covertly embracing several distinct and foreign subjects in one act. ' In Neifing v. Town of Pontiac, 56 Ill. 172, 'An to extend the corporate powers of the town of Pontiac' was sustained, as embracing one subject, although it contained provi......
-
Milwaukee Cnty. v. Isenring
...ours: An act to amend the charter of a city (Morford v. Unger, 8 Iowa, 82); an act to extend the corporate powers of a town (Neifing v. Town of Pontiac, 56 Ill. 172); an act to change the boundaries of two counties (Humboldt Co. v. Churchill County Com'rs, 6 Nev. 30); an act for the enlargi......
-
City of Chicago v. Reeves
...vices. * * * We entertain no doubt of the constitutionality of the enactment, and the judgment must be affirmed.’ In Neifing v. Town of Pontiac, 56 Ill. 172, under ‘An act to extend the corporate powers of the town of Pontiac,’ it was held a provision forbidding beer to be brought within th......
-
People v. Huff
...constitutionality of a statute unless the objection is made by one whose rights have been in some way injuriously affected (Neifing v. Town of Pontiac, 56 Ill. 172;Bobel v. People, 173 Ill. 19, 50 N. E. 322,64 Am. St. Rep. 64;City of Chicago v. Wolf, 221 Ill. 130, 77 N. E. 414; People v. Mc......