People v. Schreiber
| Citation | 95 N.E. 189,250 Ill. 345 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. SCHREIBER. |
| Decision Date | 07 June 1911 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Winnebago County Court; Louis M. Reckhow, Judge.
Serenes T. Schreiber was convicted of an offense, and brings error. Affirmed.B. A. Knight (G. E. Johnson, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
W. H. Stead, Atty. Gen., Harry B. North, State's Atty., and Fred H. Hand, for the People.
This was an information filed by the state's attorney of Winnebago county, in the county court of said county, charging Serenes T. Schreiber, the plaintiff in error, with having violated section 1 of an act entitled ‘An act to prevent and punish frauds in the practice of law,’ by holding himself out as an attorney at law, and by representing that he was authorized to practice law, when he had not been regularly licensed to practice law in the courts of this state, which section of the statute reads as follows: ‘That any person residing in this state, not being regularly licensed to practice law in the courts of this state, who shall in any manner hold himself out as an attorney at law or solicitor in chancery, or represent himself either verbally or in writing, directly or indirectly, as authorized to practice law, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine of not less than twenty-five ($25) dollars, nor more than five hundred ($500) dollars, or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by both fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court, for each and every offense, said misdemeanor to be prosecuted and costs assessed as in other cases of misdemeanor under chapter 38 of the Revised Statutes of Illinois.’ Hurd's Stat. 1909, p. 775. A motion to quash the information was made and overruled, and the plea of not guilty was entered, and upon a trial before a jury plaintiff in error was found guilty, and the court, after overruling a motion for a new trial and in arrest of judgment, entered judgment on the verdict, sentencing the plaintiff in error to pay a fine of $300 and the costs of prosecution, and that he be committed to the county jail of Winnebago county until the fine and costs were paid. The writ of error has costs were paid. This writ of error has
[1] It is contended that the act under which the plaintiff in error was convicted is unconstitutional (1) on the ground that the title of the act is insufficient; and (2) that the act discriminates against residents of this state and in favor of residents of foreign states. We are of the opinion both contentions are without force. The act was designed to prevent persons who reside in this state, and who were not duly licensed to practice law in this state, from imposing upon the public by holding themselves out as duly licensed attorneys at law, or from representing to the public that they were authorized to practice law. For a person who has not been admitted to the bar in this state to hold himself out as a duly licensed attorney at law, or to represent that he is authorized to practice law in this state, would be a gross fraud, and such action would bring the offender clearly within the language of an act framed with the design to prevent and punish frauds in the practice of law.
[2] It has been held by this court that any means which are reasonably adapted to secure the object indicated in the title of an act may be included within the body of the act (Larned v. Tiernan, 110 Ill. 173), and if by any fair intendment the provisions in the body of an act have a necessary or proper connection with the title of the act, such provisions are not objectionable (Hudnall v. Ham, 172 Ill. 76, 49 N. E. 985). And it would seem too clear for argument that a statute which prohibits persons in this state from holding themselves out as attorneys at law, who have not been regularly admitted to the bar, and who have no right to practice law in this state, would reasonably tend to prevent fraud in the practice of law, and that such an enactment would have a necessary and proper connection with the title, which states the act which is to follow is one for the prevention and punishment of frauds in the practice of law. We are of the opinion the title of said act is sufficient, and that the body of the act is within the title.
[3] The contention that the act discriminates against persons residing in this state, and in favor of persons residing outside the state, is based upon the view that, while the act prohibits persons that reside in the state from practicing law without having been admitted to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex. Inf. Miller v. St. L. Union Trust Co.
...234 N.W. 260; Savings Bank v. Ward, 100 U.S. 195; Barr v. Cardell, 173 Iowa, 31; State of New York v. Alfani, 227 N.Y. 335; Illinois v. Schreiber, 250 Ill. 345; People v. California Protective Corp., 244 Pac. 1089; State ex rel. Lundin v. Merchants Protective Corp., 177 Pac. 694; In Matter ......
-
People v. McGowan
...or information charged the breach thereof in words of the statute. People v. Green, 362 Ill. 171, 199 N.E. 278; People v. Schreiber, 250 Ill. 345, 95 N.E. 189; McCracken v. People, 209 Ill. 215, 70 N.E. 749; Meadowcroft v. People, 163 Ill. 56, 45 N.E. 991, 35 L.R.A. They next contend that t......
-
People v. Munson
...of this state cannot commence or prosecute suits in its courts of record. People v. Hubbard, 313 Ill. 346, 145 N. E. 93;People v. Schreiber, 250 Ill. 345, 95 N. E. 189; Robb v. Smith, 3 Scam. (Ill.) 46. [3][4] Attorneys are divided into two general classes: Attorneys at law and attorneys in......
-
LaBrum v. Commonwealth Title Co. of Philadelphia
...& Trust Co., 227 N.Y. 366; People v. Title Guarantee & T. Co., 230 N.Y. 578; People v. Lawyers Title Corporation, 282 N.Y. 513; People v. Schreiber, 250 Ill. 345; People rel. Illinois State Bar Assn. v. Peoples Stock Yards State Bank, 344 Ill. 462; In re Unauthorized Practice of Law, Gore, ......