People v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 18 June 1919
• Docket Number: No. 12556.,12556.
• Citation: 123 N.E. 543,288 Ill. 442
• Parties: PEOPLE v. JOHNSON.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

288 Ill. 442

123 N.E. 543

PEOPLE

v.JOHNSON.

No. 12556.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 18, 1919.

Error to Municipal Court of Chicago; John Richardson, Judge.

Harry Johnson was convicted of violating the Motor Vehicle Law, and he brings error. Affirmed.

See, also, 285 Ill. 194, 120 N. E. 453.Fyffe, Ryner & Dale, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

Edward J. Brundage, Atty. Gen., and Maclay Hoyne, State's Atty., and Edward C. Fitch, both of Chicago (Edward E. Wilson, of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

THOMPSON, J.

The plaintiff in error, Harry Johnson, was convicted in the municipal court of Chicago of a violation of section 15b of the Motor Vehicle Law (Hurd's Stat. 1917, p. 2576), and was sentenced to pay a fine of $200 and costs. He prosecutes this writ of error to reverse the judgment and sentence of the court.

The facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff in error was the general manager of the Commercial Car Unit Company, whose place of business is located in Chicago. The company was engaged in the business of attaching truck units to pleasure car units and making of them commercial trucks. On January 5, 1918, the Ford Motor Company delivered six new Ford cars to the premises of the Commercial Car Unit Company. The plaintiff in error thereupon ordered one of his workmen to change the motor numbers on these cars. There were seven figures in each of the numbers, which had been stamped on the left-hand side of each of these motors with a steel die by the Ford Motor Company. Following directions of plaintiff in error, the workmen changed the motor numbers of these new Ford cars by hammering out the third and fourth figures and stamping different figures over the same spots. The first two and last three figures in the number were not touched. No explanation is made for changing the numbers.

The only question before us is the constitutionality of said section 15b of the Motor Vehicle Law, which provides:

‘Any person having in his or her possession any motor bicycle or motor vehicle from which the manufacturer's serial number, or any other manufacturer's trade or distinguishing number or identification mark, has been removed, defaced, covered, or destroyed for the purpose of concealing or destroying the identity of such motor bicycle or motor vehicle shall be liable to a fine of not more than two hundred dollars ($200) or imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed six (6) months, or both.’

It is urged that this section of the statute violates section 2 of article 2 of the Constitution of this state as well as section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the federal Constitution, in that it deprives the defendant of his liberty and property without due process of law and denies to him the equal protection of the laws. It is contended that the statute is an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of the police power of the state.

At the close of all the evidence plaintiff in error submitted eight propositions of law, which he asked the court to hold to be the law as applicable to the case. The court marked each of the propositions ‘Refused.’ It will be unnecessary to discuss this action of the court, for the reason that we have held that the submission of propositions of law to the court is inapplicable to a criminal case, where the same is tried by the court without a jury. People v. Taylor, 279 Ill. 481, 117 N. E. 62;Jacobs v. People, 218 Ill. 500, 75 N. E. 1034;Chicago, Wilmington & Vermilion Coal Co. v. People, 214 Ill. 421, 73 N. E. 770.

Motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were made and overruled.

The police power of a state is an attribute of sovereignty, and exists without any reservation in the Constitution, being founded on the duty of the state to protect its citizens and provide for the safety and good order of society. The mere fact that a law restrains the liberty of citizens of a state does not render it unconstitutional. In Hawthorn v. People, 109 Ill. 302, 50 Am. Rep. 610, we discussed at length the powers of the Legislature, and an elaborate repetition of that discussion would serve no good purpose here. We have held in a long line of decisions, where the authorities have been collected and discussed, that it is for the Legislature to determine when the conditions exist calling for the exercise of police power to meet existing evils, and when the Legislature has acted the presumption is that the act is a valid exercise of such power. People v. Stokes, 281 Ill. 159, 118 N. E. 87;People v. Henning Co., 260 Ill. 554, 103 N. E. 530,49 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1206;People v. Ellerding, 254 Ill. 579, 98 N. E. 982,40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 893.

It is contended by plaintiff in error that one might be guilty under this act by having a car in his possession from which the numbers had been removed without his knowledge. The Constitution does not require that scienter is a necessary element of any law where an offense is malum prohibitum. One may violate the law without any intent on his part to do so. People v. Nylin, 236 Ill. 19, 86 N. E. 156;People v. Spoor, 235 Ill. 230, 85 N. E. 207,126 Am. St. Rep. 197,14 Ann. Cas. 638. Various statutes of this state,...