People v. Adduci, 32339
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
| Citation | 412 Ill. 621,108 N.E.2d 1 |
| Docket Number | No. 32339,32339 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. ADDUCI. |
| Decision Date | 17 September 1952 |
Page 1
v.
ADDUCI.
[412 Ill. 622]
Page 2
Ivan A. Elliott, Atty. Gen., and George P. Coutrakon, State's Attorney, Springfield, (Robert B. Oxtoby, Springfield, and Harry L. Pate, Tuscola, of counsel), for the People.A. M. Fitzgerald, of Springfield, for defendant in error.
PER CURIAM.
The People seek review of an order of the circuit court of Sangamon County sustaining a motion to quash an indictment, by writ of error as provided in [412 Ill. 623] section 17 of division XIII of the Criminal Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1951, chap. 38, par. 747,) and under section 75 of the Civil Practice Act, (Ill.Rev.Stat.1951, chap. 110, par. 199,) which permits a direct review in all cases in which the validity of a statute is involved.
The defendant in error, James J. Adduci, was indicted by the grand jury of Sangamon County, in an indictment returned in the circuit court thereof and which indictment contained four counts. Each count charged a violation of section 12 of 'An Act to revise the law in relation to State contracts', approved June 22, 1915. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1951, chap. 127, par. 75.) The first count charged in substance that the defendant in error was a duly elected, qualified and acting member of the House of Representatives of the General Assembly of the State of Illinois, and while so acting he did, on or about the sixth day of July, A.D. 1950, unlawfully and corruptly become interested in a certain contract, designated by the Superintendent of Printing of the State of Illinois as order No. 13047, dated July 6, 1950, for the printing and manufacture of envelopes by and between the State of Illinois and the Central Envelope and Lithograph Company, an Illinois corporation (and stating the kind and number of envelopes), for the sum of $8176, and that the defendant in error did corruptly and unlawfully receive from the said Central Envelope and Lithograph Company, for his interest, as aforesaid, in said contract, a large amount of money (a more particular description being unknown to the grand jurors), and that said unknown amount of money was paid to the defendant in error as a commission, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, etc. The second count was based on the same transaction but left out some of the details of the alleged contract. The third and fourth counts were based on an alleged contract between the State of Illinois and the same corporation, but dated October 21, 1949, and described as order No. 88293, and the wording [412 Ill. 624] of these counts three and four followed generally the wording contained in counts one and two, respectively.
Originally, a motion to quash the indictment was filed which assigned fifteen grounds for the motion, and later, by amendment, two additional grounds were added. The eighth and ninth grounds were based on the charge that said section 12 was unconstitutional and void in that it is vague, indefinite and uncertain, and does not define and describe, so that the persons therein prohibited from participating in contracts of the State may know the meaning of the words 'become, directly or indirectly, interested in any such contracts,' and, further, because it cannot be determined with any reasonable degree of certainty what the legislature intended by this section. The other grounds in the motion to quash challenged the sufficiency of the counts for various reasons.
We will first consider the question as to the constitutionality of the above
Page 3
section 12. In doing this it is necessary that we keep in mind the fundamental rules of construction as laid down by this court from time to time. Among these are the following: A statute is presumed to be valid and all doubt or uncertainties arising either from the language of the constitution, or the act itself, must be resolved in favor of the validity of the act; and this court will assume to declare it void only in case of a clear conflict with the...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shoresman v. Burgess, 76-2-035.
......People v. Shoresman, No. 75-L-887 412 F. Supp. 835 (Cir.Ct. Champaign County, Ill., Mar. 1, 1976). ...1975); Brown v. Kirk, supra. Cf. People v. Adduci, 412 Ill. 621, 108 N.E.2d 1 (1952); Bock v. Long, 3 Ill.App.3d 691, 279 N.E.2d 464 (1st Dist. ......
-
People v. Illinois State Toll Highway Commission
...as [3 Ill.2d 234] will uphold the validity of the statute rather than one which would render it unconstitutional. People v. Adduci, 412 Ill. 621, 108 N.E.2d 1. Nor can it be contended that a property owner will not be heard on the necessity for taking, as the eminent domain proceeding provi......
-
People v. Savaiano, 75--100
...to ch. 127, § 132.11--1, which relates to members of the General Assembly, the Illinois Supreme Court said in People v. Adduci (1952), 412 Ill. 621, 627, 108 N.E.2d 1, 'The interest against which the prohibition is leveled is such an interest as prevents or tends to prevent the public offic......
-
People v. Isaacs, 39797
...with. Page 43 The People in contending these counts are not defective as vague and uncertain rely principally on People v. Adduci, 412 Ill. 621, 108 N.E.2d 1, where this court dealt with the predecessor of present section 12 of the act relating to State contracts. The pertinent section then......