People v. Davies
| Decision Date | 22 October 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 21421.,21421. |
| Citation | 183 N.E. 11,350 Ill. 48 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. DAVIES. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Municipal Court of Chicago; Thomas A. Green, Judge.
John Davies was convicted of unlawfully, willfully, and wrongfully changing, altering, and removing the manufacturer's number on an automatic pistol, and he brings error.
Cause transferred to the Appellate Court.
Samuel Barth and Elwyn E. Long, both of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
Oscar E. Carlstrom, Atty. Gen., John A. Swanson, State's Atty., of Chicago and J. J. Neiger, of Springfield (Edward E. Wilson and Grenville Beardsley, both of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
John Davies, plaintiff in error, was convicted in the municipal court of Chicago of unlawfully, willfully, and wrongfully changing, altering, and removing the manufacturer'snumber on a .45 caliber Colt automatic pistol, and was sentenced to imprisonment in the House of Correction for one year and to pay a fine of $100 and costs. He sued out this writ of error to review that judgment, and contends that section 2-A of ‘An act revising the law relating to deadly weapons,’ as amended by the Act of June 29, 1931 (Smith-Hurd Rev. Stat. 1931, c. 38, § 153a), is unconstitutional, and that the weapon from which the manufacturer's number had been removed was seized by police officers after an unlawful arrest, in violation of his constitutional rights.
[2] The record shows that the constitutional questions here sought to be raised were not raised in the trial court. Although a motion to quash was made, the constitutionality of the statute was not questioned. No questions relating to the validity of the statute were raised in the oral motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment. The record does not show that any specific constitutional objections were made in the written motion to suppress the evidence; the only statement relating to the Constitution being the assertion that ‘your petitioner further represents that he expects to stand upon his rights guaranteed him by the State and Federal constitutions in this behalf and as soon as his matter could be heard,’ etc. This general statement is not sufficient, as it cannot be known what constitutional question is raised in order to determine whether it has been previously passed upon by this court. The mere statement of the fact that the state and Federal Constitutions guarantee certain rights on which one expects to stand is not of itself sufficient to show...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Brickey
...not search the constitution to discover some basis upon which jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings can be sustained. People v. Davies, 350 Ill. 48, 183 N.E. 11. Nor does the mere allegation in a pleading or an assignment of error that a statute is unconstitutional authorize a direct re......
-
Hawkins v. Hawkins
... ... If the court lacked such jurisdiction, it could not determine the merits of the cause. People v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 324 Ill. 591, 614, 155 N. E. 841, 51 A. L. R. 1236. The dismissal of a bill, however, for inconsistent reasons, and ... ...
-
City of Chicago v. Peterson
... ... People v. Jiras, 340 Ill. 208, 172 N. E. 47;Wilson v. Prochnow, 354 Ill. 98, 187 N. E. 914;People v. Allen, 352 Ill. 262, 185 N. E. 605. It is not enough to ... Iles v. Heidenreich, 271 Ill. 480, 111 N. E. 524;People v. City of Chicago, 238 Ill. 146, 87 N. E. 307;People v. Davies, 350 Ill. 48, 183 N. E. 11. An examination of appellant's brief further shows that only a construction, and not the validity, of an ordinance [360 ... ...
-
Economy Dairy Co. v. Kerner
...on which jurisdiction to entertain the appeal can be sustained. City of Chicago v. Peterson, 360 Ill. 177, 195 N.E. 636;People v. Davies, 350 Ill. 48, 183 N.E. 11;Iles v. Heidenreich, 271 Ill. 480, 111 N.E. 524;People v. City of Chicago, 238 Ill. 146, 87 N.E. 307. A constitutional question ......