People v. Newcom

• Decision Date: 28 October 1925
• Docket Number: No. 16616.,16616.
• Citation: 318 Ill. 188,149 N.E. 269
• Parties: PEOPLE v. NEWCOM.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

318 Ill. 188

149 N.E. 269

PEOPLE

v.NEWCOM.

No. 16616.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 28, 1925.

Error to Circuit Court, Saline County; E. A. Somers, Judge.

James Newcom was convicted of violating the statute relating to the destruction and injury of property and person by use of explosives, and he brings error.

Affirmed.

H. R. Lightfoot and A. C. Lewis, both of Harrisburg, for plaintiff in error.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Atty. Gen., Charles T. Flota, State's Atty., of Harrisburg, Charles F. Mansfield, of Monticello, and Virgil L. Blanding, of Springfield, for the People.

HEARD, J.

Plaintiff in error, James Newcom, was indicted, tried, and convicted in the circuit court of Saline county for a violation of an act of the Legislature passed in 1921 (Laws 1921, p. 401), entitled:

‘An act to punish persons for destroying property, or inflicting injury to persons, by means of any bomb, dynamite or other explosive, or by means of any similar instrument or implement.’

[1] The abstract filed in this court is defective, as it does not disclose what judgment was rendered by the circuit court. A party bringing a case to this court for review must furnish such a complete abstract of the record as will fully present every error and exception relied upon sufficiently for the examination and determination of the case without the examination of the record itself. People v. Raboin, 316 Ill. 75, 146 N. E. 538. In the present case, however, defendant in error has filed an additional abstract, which, while little more than an index, does show that plaintiff in error was convicted and sentenced.

It is contended by plaintiff in error that the section of the act under which the prosecution was brought is in violationof section 13 of article 4 of the Constitution of this state, which provides:

‘No act hereafter passed shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title. But if any subject shall be embraced in an act which shall not be expressed in the title, such act shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be so expressed.’

The section in question reads as follows:

‘Whoever shall willfully and maliciously destroy, damage, injure or deface any building used or designed for human occupancy, or shall attempt so to do, by means of any bomb, dynamite or other explosive, or by means of any similar instrument or implement, shall be imprisoned in the penitentiary for a period of not less than one year nor more than twenty years.’ Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1923, § 1, p. 683.

[2] It is plaintiff in error's contention that the title of the act has restricted the purpose of the act to punish persons for destroying property or inflicting injury to persons, and that having thus restricted the act it may not properly provide for the punishment of those who injure or deface property. The rule of law is, that an investigation like this, concerning the constitutionality of an act of the Legislature, begins with the presumption that the act is valid. All doubts or uncertainties arising either from the language of the Constitution or the act must be resolved in favor of the validity of the act, and the court will only assume to declare it void in case of a clear conflict with the Constitution. The duty of the court is to so construe acts of the Legislature as to uphold their constitutionality and validity if it can reasonably be done, and if their construction is doubtful the doubt will be resolved in favor of the law. People v. McBride, 234 Ill. 146, 84 N. E. 865,123 Am. St. Rep. 82,14 Ann. Cas. 994;People v. Thompson, 155 Ill. 451, 40 N. E. 307;People v. Hutchinson, 172 Ill. 486, 50 N. E. 599,40 L. R. A. 770;City of Chicago v. Manhattan Cement Co., 178 Ill. 372, 53 N. E. 68,45 L. R. A. 848, 69 Am. St. Rep. 321;Arms v. Ayer, 192 Ill. 601, 61 N. E. 851,58 L. R. A. 277, 85 Am. St. Rep. 357.

[3][4] The constitutional provision in question has been uniformly construed liberally in favor of the validity of enactments. Blake v. People, 109 Ill. 504. When a general purpose is declared, the means by which to accomplish that purpose are presumed to be intended as necessary incidents. People v. Hazelwood, 116 Ill. 319, 6 N. E. 480. Any means which are reasonably adapted to secure the object indicated in the title may be included in the act. Larned v. Tiernan, 110 Ill. 173. If by any fair intendment the provisions in the body of the act have a necessary or proper connection with the title it is not objectionable. Hudnall v. Ham, 172 Ill. 76, 49 N. E. 985. To render a provision in the body of an act void as not embraced in the title, such provision must be incongruous with the title or must have no proper connection with or relation to the title. People v. McBride, supra. If all the provisions of an act relate to one subject indicated in the title and are parts of it or incident to it or reasonably connected with it, or in some reasonable sense auxiliary to the object in view, then the provision of the Constitution is obeyed. Ritchie v. People, 155 Ill. 98, 40 N. E. 454,29 L. R. A. 79, 46 Am. St. Rep. 315;Boehm v. Hertz, 182 Ill. 154, 54 N. E. 973,48 L. R. A. 575;Christy v. Elliott, 216 Ill. 31, 74 N. E. 1035,1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 215, 108 Am. St. Rep. 196,3 Ann. Cas. 487.

[5][6] An act may contain many provisions and details for the accomplishment of a legislative purpose, and if they legitimately tend to effectuate that object the act is not contrary to the constitutional provision. Town of Manchester v. People, 178 Ill. 285, 52 N. E. 964;Meul v. People, 198 Ill. 258, 64 N. E. 1106;People v. Huff, 249 Ill. 164, 94 N. E. 61. If there is any question about a provision being within the title, it will be decided on the basis whether or not the provision tends to promote the object and purpose of the act as expressed in the title. Dolese v. Pierce, 124 Ill. 140, ...