People v. Hawkinson
| Decision Date | 16 February 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 17702.,17702. |
| Citation | 324 Ill. 285,155 N.E. 318 |
| Parties | PEOPLE s. HAWKINSON. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Hancock County Court; Warren H. Orr, Judge.
A. Hawkinson was convicted of practice of medicine without a license, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
Thomas Morris, of La Crosse, Wis., Clyde P. Johnson, of Carthage, O. C. Kirkpatrick, of Dallas City, and L. Lamet, of Warsaw, for plaintiff in error.
Oscar E. Carlstrom, Atty. Gen., Homer H. Williams, State's Atty., of Hamilton, and Merrill F. Wehmhoff, of Decatur, for the People.
September 3, 1925, an information on behalf of the people of the state of Illinois was filed in the county court of Hancock county, the first count of which charged that plaintiff in error, on the 2d day of September, 1925, held himself out to the public as being engaged in the diagnosis and treatment of ailments of human beings as a business or profession, without having a license as required by the Medical Practice Act. The second count charged that on September 2, 1925, he treated human ailments by a system or method known as chiropractic, without having a license so to do. February 1, 1926, plaintiff in error filed a plea in bar, to the effect that at the April term, 1925, of the county court of Hancock county he was tried and convicted for the same offense as that alleged in the information of September 3, 1925. The state's attorney filed a demurrer to this plea, which demurrer was sustained. Plaintiff in error then entered a plea of not guilty, and upon trial by a jury he was found guilty upon both counts of the information. Motion for a new trial being overruled, he was sentenced on each count to pay a fine of $100 and to be confined on the Illinois state farm at Vandalia for the term of 60 days, the sentences to run concurrently. To review this record plaintiff in error has sued out a writ of error from this court.
[1][2][3] It is first contended by plaintiff in error that the Medical Practice Act (Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1925, c. 91, § 1 et seq.), and particularly that portion of it prescribing the requirements of an applicant for a license for the practice of any system or method of treating human ailments without the use of drugs or medicines, and without operative surgery, is unconstitutional, in that it provides that, before an applicant may take an examination, he must be a graduate of a school which is reputable and in good standing in the judgment of the department of registration and education. Plaintiff in error's position is that this is a delegation by the Legislature of its legislative functionsto said department, and is therefore invalid. Legislative power is the power to enact laws, or declare what the laws shall be. Judicial power is the power which adjudicates upon the rights of citizens, and to that end construes and applies the law. The Legislature cannot deal with the details of every particular case, and the manner of executing a law must necessarily be left to the reasonable discretion of administrative officers, and the exercise of that discretion does not constitute the exercise of judicial power. Board of Education v. Board of Education, 314 Ill. 83, 145 N. E. 169. An administrative agency, empowered to issue licenses to engage in certain professions, must necessarily exercise quasi judicial power in determining whether a license shall be issued; but the exercise of this power is only incidental to the duty of administering the law relating to the regulation of a particular calling or profession, and in so doing it is not exercising judicial power, within the meaning of the constitutional provision that no person or collection of persons, being one of the three departments of the state, shall exercise any power properly belonging to either of the others, except as in the constitution expressly directed or permitted. Italia America Shipping Corp. v. Nelson, 323 Ill. 427, 154 N. E. 198.
[4][5][6][7] While the Legislature cannot arbitrarily interfere with the enjoyment of rights guaranteed by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Potts
... ... People v. Gordon, 274 Ill. 462, 113 N.E. 864 (1916). An equally familiar point of decision is that it is strictly within the province of the legislature to declare what conduct shall or shall not be punished. People v. Nicholson, 401 Ill. 546, 82 N.E.2d 656 (1948); People v. Hawkinson, 324 Ill. 285, 155 N.E. 318 (1927). By the statute under which defendant was charged, the legislature saw fit to provide punishment for the person aiding an escape, but not the one aided. When it is considered that the danger of escape is considerably increased by outside intervention or internal ... ...
-
People v. Joseph
... ... Bruner (1931), 343 Ill. 146, 157, 175 N.E. 400 ... While our constitution does not define the term, this court has stated that "[j]udicial power is the power which adjudicates upon the rights of citizens and to that end construes and applies the law." (People v. Hawkinson (1927), 324 Ill. 285, 287, 155 N.E. 318.) We have recognized that [113 Ill.2d 42] this very general definition may be supplemented by looking to the common law and to the history of our institutions at the time of the adoption of the 1970 Constitution. (People v. Callopy (1934), 358 Ill. 11, 14, ... ...
-
People v. Inghram
... ... Joseph (1986), 113 Ill.2d 36, 41, 99 Ill.Dec. 120, 495 N.E.2d 501, quoting People v. Hawkinson (1927), 324 Ill. 285, 287, 155 N.E. 318.) This court held in People ex rel. State Board of Health v. Apfelbaum (1911), 251 Ill. 18, 95 N.E. 995, that the granting or revocation of a license to practice medicine by the State Board of Health is not an exercise of judicial power, "as that term is ... ...
-
People v. Winfield, 85-3737
... ... Jackson, 69 Ill.2d 252, 256, 13 Ill.Dec. 667, 371 N.E.2d 602.) Judicial power is defined as "the power which adjudicates upon the rights of citizens and to that end construes and applies the law" (113 Ill.2d 36, 41, 99 Ill.Dec. 120, 495 N.E.2d 501; People v. Hawkinson (1927), 324 Ill. 285, 287, 155 N.E. 318), and it includes the "inherent authority to prescribe and institute rules of procedure." (113 Ill.2d 36, 42, 99 Ill.Dec. 120, 495 N.E.2d 501; Agran v. Checker Taxi Cab (1952), 412 Ill. 145, 149, 105 N.E.2d 713.) On the other hand, the supreme court has ... ...