People ex rel. Matson v. Chicago

• Decision Date: 24 April 1925
• Docket Number: No. 16251.,16251.
• Citation: People ex rel. Matson v. Chicago, 316 Ill. 482, 147 N.E. 371 (Ill. 1925)
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. MATSON, County Collector v. CHICAGO, B. & Q. R. CO.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

316 Ill. 482

147 N.E. 371

PEOPLE ex rel. MATSON, County Collector

v.CHICAGO, B. & Q. R. CO.

No. 16251.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 24, 1925.

Proceeding by the People, on the relation of Hilding F. Matson, County Collector, for judgment and order of sale for delinquent taxes, to which the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company filed objections. From a judgment overruling its objections, the Railroad Company appeals.

Reversed.

Appeal from Warren County Court; C. M. Huey, Judge.

Grier, Safford & Soule, of Monmouth (J. A. Connell, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.

Charles E. Lauder, State's Atty., of Monmouth (Frederick H. Lauder, of Monmouth, of counsel), for appellee.

DE YOUNG, J.

To the application of the county collector of Warren county for judgment and order of sale for delinquent taxes the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company filed objections to the road and bridge taxes of the towns of Spring Grove, Monmouth, Lenox, Roseville, Swan, Coldbrook, Hale, Tompkins, and Greenbush, in that county. The objections were overruled, and the railroad company prosecutes this appeal.

After the transcript of the record had been filed in this court, appellant made a motion in the county court to amend the bill of exceptions, and upon a hearing the motion was allowed. Subsequently appellant presented to this court its motion for leave to file a transcript of the record made in the county court pursuant to its motion to amend the bill of exceptions. This motion was also allowed, and a transcript of the supplemental record was filed. Appellee then interposed a motion in this court to strike the bill of exceptions from the transcript of the original record, and urges in support of the motion that the original bill of exceptions did not contain, nor purport to contain, all the evidence offered on the hearing of the objections, and that the county court had no power to allow the amendment of the bill of exceptions. Whether this motion should be granted is the first question to be determined.

On appellant's motion in the county court to amend the original bill of exceptions, it appeared that the court reporter who took the testimony upon the hearing of the objections prepared a typewritten transcript of the testimony in duplicate, but omitted therefrom all the exhibits offered by either party, as well as a certificate that it contained all the evidence introduced. He filed these transcripts in the office of the clerk of the county court. The deputy clerk, in preparing the transcript of the record for this appeal, discovered that no certificate of the trial judge had been attached to either duplicate, and called the reporter's attention to the omission. At his request the deputy clerk prepared two of thses certificates, one on each of two sheets, and within the period fixed for filing the bill of exceptions obtained the judge's signature to both and attached one to a duplicate transcript of the evidence. This duplicate the deputy clerk incorporated in the transcript of the record, which, on August 26, 1924, was filed in this court.

The other duplicate was missing when one of the judge's certificates was attached to the first, but on August 23, 1924, the state's attorney, of appellee's counsel, in searching the clerk's office, found it without the necessary certificate. Later the remaining certificate was attached to this transcript of the evidence, and the whole was left on file as the original bill of exceptions in the cause.' It was also shown that the exhibits offered on the hearing of the objections to the county collector's application had been inadvertently omitted from the transcript of the evidence by the court reporter. The county court inspected the exhibits with the memoranda made thereon in the court's presence, examined the records and the transcript of the evidence theretofore filed, and certified that upon the hearing of the objections the exhibits were admitted in evidence on behalf of the objector, but had been omitted from the bill of exceptions. The county court thereupon ordered that the original bill of exceptions be amended to certify the facts, and signed and sealed a supplemental bill as an amendment to the former bill of exceptions, and certified that the original and supplemental bills of exceptions contained all the evidence introduced upon the hearing of the objections by both parties. The order was entered nunc pro tunc as of the date of the certificate to the original bill of exceptions.

[1][2] The facts and circumstances shown by the complete record justified the county court in amending the original bill of exceptions and certifying that the original and supplemental bills of exceptions contained all the evidence offered on the hearing of the objections to the county collector's application. A bill of exceptions had been presented to the trial judge within the time fixed for filing a bill of exceptions, and there were in the files and records ample memoranda upon which the requested amendment could be predicated. That the omitted exhibits actually had been admitted in evidence was not controverted. A bill of exceptions, like any other record, may be amended, even after the term has expired, to make it speak the truth. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. Walsh, 150 Ill. 607, 37 N. E. 1001;Olds v. North Chicago Stree Railroad Co., 165 Ill. 472, 46 N. E. 446;People v. Kuhn, 291 Ill. 154, 125 N. E. 882. The supplemental record is properly before us, and appellee's motion to strike the bill of exceptions from the transcript of the original record is denied.

[3] The road and bridge tax was certified by the highway commissioner of each of the several towns to the board of supervisors of Warren county in a gross or lump sum. In no instance were the items which constituted the total stated separately. On the authority of these certificates the county clerk...