People v. Mahumed

• Decision Date: 17 November 1942
• Docket Number: No. 26735.,26735.
• Citation: 381 Ill. 81,44 N.E.2d 911
• Parties: PEOPLE v. MAHUMED.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

381 Ill. 81

44 N.E.2d 911

PEOPLE

v.MAHUMED.

No. 26735.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Nov. 17, 1942.

Error to Municipal Court of Chicago; Charles S. Dougherty, Judge.

Leah Mahumed was charged with unlawfully, intentionally and maliciously naming another as corespondent in a suit for separate maintenance in violation of Smith-Hurd Stats. c. 38, § 246.3, the information was quashed, and the People bring error.

Affirmed.George F. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and Thomas J. Courtney, State's Atty., of Chicago (Edward E. Wilson, John T. Gallagher, and Melvin S. Rembe, all of Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

Leonard J. Grossman, of Chicago, for defendant in error.

THOMPSON, Justice.

Defendant in error, Leah Mahumed, was charged, in the municipal court of Chicago, with violating section 3 of an act entitled, ‘An Act in relation to certain causes of action conductive to extortion and blackmail, and to declare illegal, contracts and acts made and done in pursuance thereof.’ The charge was laid in an information alleging that she ‘unlawfully, intentionally, and maliciously, did, then and there, name one Dorothy Tourssen as corespondent in a certain suit for separate maintenance filed of record in the Circuit Court of Cook county on the 4th day of September, A. D. 1941, entitled, Leah Mahumed v. Herbert Mahumed, * * * in violation of Paragraph 246.3 chapter 38 Illinois Revised Statutes 1937,’ etc.

A motion to quash the information on the ground that the act is unconstitutional was sustained and the defendant was discharged. The People have sued out this writ of error under the provisions of the act of 1933 amending section 17 of Division XIII of the Criminal Code. Ill.Rev.Stat.1941, chap. 38, par. 747. Prior to that amendment the People were forbidden a review of a criminal case by writ of error. People v. Barber, 348 Ill. 40, 180 N.E. 633, 92 A.L.R. 1131. But since the amendment of 1933 the section reads: ‘The People may sue out writs of error to review any order or judgment quashing or setting aside an indictment or information.’ People v. Kopman, 358 Ill. 479, 193 N.E. 516. The plaintiff in error contends that the act under which the information was filed is valid, while defendant in error insists that it is unconstitutional in that it violates the fourteenth amendment to the Federal constitution by impairing contractual obligations; that it deprives one of his remedy for an injury or wrong to his person, property or reputation in violation of section 19 of the Illinois bill of rights, Smith-Hurd Stats.Const.; that it is discriminatory, in violation of section 22 of article IV of our constitution of 1870; that it contravenes section 13 of article IV of the constitution because it contains more than one subject-matter and that the title of the act does not include the provisions of section 3 of the act.

It is apparent from a reading of sections 3, 4 and 5 that the subject matters thereof are not included in the title of the act. The constitutional provision that no act shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in the title, prohibits the passage of an act containing provisions not fairly included in the title. People v. Stacker, 322 Ill. 232, 153 N.E. 354;Milne v. People, 224 Ill. 125, 79 N.E. 631. If the act contains matters which have no proper connection with, or relation to, the title, or the title itself contains subjects without any proper relation to each other, the constitutional restraint is violated.

Some of the reasons which lead to the adoption of such constitutional provision are (1) to prevent legislative ‘logrolling’; (2) to prevent surprise or fraud upon the legislature by inserting provisions into bills of which the titles give no intimation and which might, by oversight, be carelessly and unintentionally adopted; and (3) to fairly apprise the people, through such publication of legislative proceedings as is usually made of the subjects of legislation being considered, so they might be heard thereon, if they so desire, by petition or remonstrance. Rouse v. Thompson, 228 Ill. 522, 81 N.E. 1109. If the title of the act involved in the instant case is read, the ordinary mind would not, from such reading alone, conceive that the act, which was to follow the title, would contain a provision prohibiting the filing, threatening to file or causing the same to be done, any pleading or paper naming or identifying any person as corespondent in any action for divorce, separate maintenance, annulment of marriage or custody or care of children. Furthermore, no ordinary mind, in reading the title, would conceive that a provision would be included fixing a penalty, which might extend to a...