People v. Levin
| Decision Date | 28 October 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 15714.,15714. |
| Citation | 313 Ill. 588,145 N.E. 75 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. LEVIN. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Municipal Court of Chicago; Harry Olson, Judge.
Hyman Levin was convicted of maintaining a common nuisance by keeping a place for sale of intoxicating liquor, and he brings error.
Writ dismissed.
David T. Alexander, of Chicago (Morris K. Levinson, of Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
Edward J. Brundage, Atty. Gen., Robert E. Crowe, State's Atty., of Chicago, and George C. Dixon, of Dixon (Edward E. Wilson and Clyde C. Fisher, both of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
Plaintiff in error, Hyman Levin, was convicted in the municipal court of Chicago of maintaining a common nuisance by keeping a place where intoxicating liquor was kept and sold, in violation of section 21 of the Illinois Prohibition Act (Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1923, c. 43). He was tried before the court and a jury, found guilty, and sentenced to confinement at labor in the house of correction in the city of Chicago for the term of one year, and to pay a fine of $500 and costs. This writ of error is prosecuted for a review of the record.
This cause comes to this court on the common-law record, on which the sole error assigned and argued is that section 21 of the Illinois Prohibition Act is unconstitutional. The record discloses that no motion was made to quash the information. There is a recital in the record that a motion for a new trial was made and overruled, but there is no bill of exceptions preserving the motion for a new trial as part of the record, and the record does not even recite the grounds, if any special grounds were alleged, for such motion. There is no showing in the record whatever that the question of the constitutionality of said section of the Prohibition Act was presented to the trial court for decision. This court cannot take jurisdiction of this cause, upon the ground that the validity of a statute is involved, because the record does not disclose that such question was presented to the trial court for decision. People v. Rawson, 278 Ill. 654, 116 N. E. 123;Wennersten v. Sanitary District, 274 Ill. 189, 113 N. E. 148;Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. McGrath, 195 Ill. 104, 62 N. E. 782. There is no error assigned on the record that gives the Appellate Court jurisdiction of this writ of error.
As the cause is improperly in this court, the writ of error will be dismissed.
Writ dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. Morris v. Pettow
...first time in this court. Campbell v. McLain, 149 N. E. 481, 318 Ill. 610;People v. Greene, 146 N. E. 504, 315 Ill. 626;People v. Levin, 145 N. E. 75, 313 Ill. 588;Wennersten v. Sanitary District of Chicago, 113 N. E. 148, 274 Ill. 189. Nor can the appeal be taken directly to this court on ......
-
People v. Hobbs, 21769.
...335 Ill. 415, 167 N. E. 49;People v. Levin, 318 Ill. 227, 149 N. E. 230;People v. Arnett, 317 Ill. 425, 148 N. E. 306;People v. Levin, 313 Ill. 588, 145 N. E. 75;Pepole v. Ritscher, 301 Ill. 40, 133 N. E. 666;People v. Glasgow, 301 Ill. 394, 134 N. E. 19. Recitals in the judgment order of t......
-
People v. Yetter
...in a bill of exceptions or stenographic report signed by the trial judge.’ A strikingly pertinent observation was made in People v. Levin, 313 Ill. 588, 145 N.E. 75: ‘There is a recital in the record that a motion for a new trial was made and overruled, but there is no bill of exceptions pr......
-
People v. Levin
...in a bill of exceptions or stenographic report signed by the trial judge. People v. Arnett, 317 Ill. 425, 148 N. E. 306;People v. Levin, 313 Ill. 588, 145 N. E. 75;People v. Ritscher, 301 Ill. 40, 133 N. E. 666;People v. Glasgow, 301 Ill. 394, 134 N. E. 19;People v. Cowen, 283 Ill. 308, 119......