People v. Jiras

• Decision Date: 20 June 1930
• Docket Number: No. 19980.,19980.
• Citation: 172 N.E. 47,340 Ill. 208
• Parties: PEOPLE v. JIRAS.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

340 Ill. 208

172 N.E. 47

PEOPLE

v.JIRAS.

No. 19980.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 20, 1930.

Error to McDonough County Court; T. H. Miller, Judge.

Charles Jiras was convicted of maintaining an office for the treatment of human ailments without a license, and he brings error.

Cause transferred to the Appellate Court.

Harris & Harris, of Macomb, and George G. Rinier, of Indianapolis, Ind., for plaintiff in error.

Oscar e. Carlstrom, Atty. Gen., Wallace A. Walker, State's Atty., of Macomb, and George P. O'Brien, of Litchfield (R. B. O'Harra, of Carthage, of counsel), for the People.

DUNN, C. J.

The grand jury of McDonough county returned an indictment against Charles Jiras consisting of seven counts and upon a trial he was found guilty on the fourth count, which charged him with the misdemeanor of maintaining an office for the examination and treatment of persons afflicted with human ailments while not possessing a license to treat them, in violation of the provisions of section 24 of the Medical Practice Act(Smith-HurdRev. St. 1929, c. 91, § 16i).He was sentenced to pay a fine of $500 and has sued out a writ of error from this court.

The cause must be transferred to the Appellate Court.The offense of which the plaintiff in error was convicted is a misdemeanor, and writs of error in all criminal cases below the grade of felong, under the statute, can be sued out of the Appellate Court only, except in cases involving the validity of a statute or a construction of the Constitution.This record involves neither The supposed constitutional questions referred to in the assignment of errors are frivolous.It is not enough to authorize a direct appeal to this court from a trial court merely to assign as error that a statute is unconstitutional, but the actual existence of a question in regard to the construction of the Constitution which is fairly debatable is necessary to justify a direct appeal.The mere allegation is a pleading or an assignment of error that a statute is unconstitutional does not raise a constitutional question which will confer jurisdiction on the Supreme Court unless it can be seen that the question may be fairly regarded as debatable.Beach v. Peabody, 188 Ill. 75, 58 N. E. 679;Boylan v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 240 Ill. 413, 88 N. E. 981.

The validity of the statute is attacked only on grounds of its unconstitutionality, and those grounds as alleged in the assignment of errors are: First, that the statute is class legislation and not equal and uniform in its operation; second, that it embraces more than one subject and more than one title; third, that it has more than one title, no one of which substantially states the subject of the act.

The first ground is asserted in the assignment of errors, accompanied by the statement that the statute‘discriminates and violates the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States and also the constitution of the State of Illinois.’Neither the brief nor argument refers to any discrimination or inequality or lack of uniformity in the provisions of the act and therefore this ground must be regarded as abandoned.

The title of the act is, ‘An Act to revise the law in relation to the practice of the treatment of human ailments for the better protection of the public health and to prescribe penalties for the violation hereof.’In their discussion of the title in their argument counsel for the plaintiff in error state that ‘the act in question has two titles, the one designating the act as the ‘Medical Practice act,’ the other designating the act as a law in relation to the practice of the treatment of human ailments.The question then resolves itself into this: Is a title ‘Medical Practice act’ the same as ‘law in relation to the practice of the treatment of human ailments?’'This criticism finds no reasonable basis in the fact that the first section of the act is, ‘This act shall be known as the ‘Medical Practice act.”The title of an act, under section 13 of article 4 of the Constitution, is indispensable.Binz v. Weber, 81 Ill....