People v. Sisk

• Decision Date: 21 April 1921
• Docket Number: No. 13838.,13838.
• Citation: 297 Ill. 314,130 N.E. 696
• Parties: PEOPLE v. SISK.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

297 Ill. 314

130 N.E. 696

PEOPLE

v.SISK.

No. 13838.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 21, 1921.

Error to Circuit Court, Vermilion County; Walter Brewer, Judge.

Zimmie Sisk was convicted of violating the Motor Vehicle Act by driving a traction engine over the edge of a paved public highway without protecting the edge of the pavement, and he brings error.

Affirmed.T. C. Buxton, of Decatur, and Rearick & Meeks, of Danville, for plaintiff in error.

Edward J. Brundage, Atty. Gen., John H. Lewman, State's Atty., of Danville, and Albert D. Rodenberg, of Springfield (Buell H. Snyder, of Danville), for the People.

CARTER, J.

Plaintiff in error was indicted in the circuit court of Vermilion county, with two other persons, for violating section 7 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The prosecution as to the other two defendants was dismissed, and on trial Sisk was found guilty by the jury, and the court entered a judgment, fining him $10 and costs. This writ of error was sued out to review that judgment.

There is no dispute as to the facts. Plaintiff in error on August 31, 1920, in Vermilion county, Ill., operated a traction engine-a metal-tired vehicle weighing more than four tons-so as to drive it onto and over the edge of a paved public highway without protecting the edge by putting down solid planks or other suitable device to prevent said vehicle from breaking off the edges of such pavement. The record shows that small pieces were chipped out of the edge of the pavement by the lugs on the metal tires when the engine was several times run over the edge of a concrete road near Armstrong, in said county.

Section 7 of the Motor Vehicle Act, upon which the indictment was based, reads as follows:

‘No tractor, traction engine or other metal-tired vehicle, weighing more than four tons, including the weight of the vehicle and its load, shall drive up onto, off or over the edge of any paved public highway in this state, without protecting such edge by putting down solid planks or other suitable device to prevent such vehicle from breaking off the edges of corners of such pavement.’ Hurd's Stat. 1919, p. 2621.

Counsel for plaintiff in error insist that section 7 is special legislation in making classifications of different sorts which are arbitrary and unreasonable; that the section also is obnoxious to the provisions of the Constitution, state and federal; and they further insist that the subject-matter of said section was not embraced within the title of the act, and therefore the act was passed in violation of section 13 of article 4 of the state Constitution.

As to the argument of counsel that section 7 is special legislation, and that if construed according to its wording it would not only apply to motor vehicles as that term is used in the Motor Vehicle Act, but also might embrace other vehicles propelled by muscular power, plaintiff in error is not in position to question the section on that ground. The evidence shows, without contradiction, that he was operating a traction engine propelled by steam, and not by muscular power, and this court has held frequently that the courts will not entertain objections to the constitutionality of a statute unless the objections are made by one whose rights have been in some way actually affected. People v. Huff, 249 Ill. 164, 94 N. E. 61, and cases there cited.

If said section be construed to mean only as applying to motor vehicles, we do not think such subdivision is unreasonable or arbitrary. This court has held that laws will not be regarded as special or class legislation simply because they affect one class and not another, if they affect all members of the same class alike. 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.

In discussing the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act of 1907 this court said relative to the classification there made, that it was primarily to govern those operating motor vehicles; that such vehicles were of such a character as that they properly form a class to which, alone, legislation may apply, and that such legislation was not subject to any constitutional objection on that ground. Hartje v. Moxley, 235 Ill. 164, 85 N. E. 216. The same reasoning has been applied by this court in other cases with reference to statutes that applied only to motor vehicles. People v. Fernow, 286 Ill. 627, 122 N. E. 155;People v. Sargent, 254 Ill. 514, 98 N. E. 959;Heartt v. Village of Downers Grove, 278 Ill. 92, 115 N. E. 869;Westfalls Storage Co. v. City of Chicago, 280 Ill. 318, 117 N. E. 439. This court in discussing motor vehicles said in City of Chicago v. Kluever, 257 Ill. 317, on page 324, 100 N. E. 917, on page 919:

‘These ponderous vehicles, driven by powerful engines, are a menace to the public safety unless managed and driven by persons who are competent and qualified to operate them. Those used for transporting heavy merchandise are practically engine driven freight cars.’

Motor vehicles, not only on account of their speed, but on account of their power, are in a class by themselves, and under the repeated decisions of this court they are properly put in a class by themselves without such legislation being unconstitutional on the ground that the classification is unreasonable. This objection is without merit.

Counsel for plaintiff in error argue strenuously that this legislation is unwise, and therefore ought to be held void by this court. This court has never assumed the right to pass on the wisdom or propriety of legislative enactments. It has never declared laws valid or invalid because they were wise or unwise or because they tended to advance or to retard justice. If legislation is not obnoxious to the provisions of the Constitution of state or nation this court has never attempted to declare such legislation invalid because it was unwise. People v. Dunne, 258 Ill. 441, 101 N. E. 560,45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 500, and cases there cited; People v. Henning Co., 260 Ill. 554, 103 N. E. 530,49 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1206. If this section of the statute is unjust and unfair to the owners of tractors, so long as it does not interfere with any of the constitutional provisions of the state or federal government the...