The City of Alton v. Kirsch
| Decision Date | 30 June 1873 |
| Parties | THE CITY OF ALTONv.GEORGE KIRSCH et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREAPPEAL from the Circuit Court of Madison county; the Hon. JOSEPH GILLESPIE, Judge, presiding.
This was a suit by the city of Alton against George Kirsch and Balser Schiep, to recover a penalty for a violation of an ordinance of the city. The complaint stated that the defendants, “on, etc., and for many days previous, violated the ordinances of the city of Alton, by selling and bartering fresh meats in less quantities than one quarter, without license.” Upon this complaint, which was sworn to, a capias or warrant was issued and served by reading. The circuit court, on appeal, dismissed the suit for the reasons given in the opinion. Mr. A. W. HOPE, for the appellant.
Mr. J. H. YAGER, for the appellees.
This suit was originally brought before a justice of the peace, by the city of Alton, and a judgment recovered against the defendants for ten dollars and costs. An appeal was taken to the circuit court of Madison county, in which court the defendants entered their motion to dismiss the suit, on the ground there was no sufficient complaint or warrant. This motion the court sustained. To reverse this judgment the plaintiff brings the record to this court, assigning as error this decision.
The suit was brought for an alleged violation of an ordinance of the city of Alton, by selling and bartering fresh meats in less quantities than one quarter, without license. It would seem the complaint was in writing, and the objection taken was, that it did not show the bartering and selling was within the limits of the city of Alton.
It is claimed by appellees that the proceeding before the justice was of a criminal nature, and the warrant commands the constable, not to summon, but to take the bodies of defendants.
The ordinance alleged to have been violated is not before us. We can not know, therefore, what its provisions on this subject may be.
It is true, as appears from the record, a complaint on oath was made that the defendants had violated certain ordinances of the city. What the penalty provided, and what the mode of proceeding prescribed by the ordinances, we are not advised. If the ordinance required a complaint on oath should be made, that would not determine the character of the proceeding. For aught we can know, the ordinances not being before us, such violation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Collins v. Montemy
...Williams v. Corbett, 28 Ill. 262; Frye v. Tucker et al. 24 Ill. 181. On appeal from a justice the case is tried de novo:City of Alton v. Kirsch et al. 68 Ill. 261; Minard v. Lawlor, 26 Ill. 302. Where a suit is prematurely brought, advantage may be taken of it on the trial: 1 Chitty's Pl. 4......
-
Fortune v. Incorporated Town of Wilburton
... ... 656; Lewiston v. Proctor, 27 Ill ... 414, 419; Quincy v. Ballance, 30 Ill. 185; Alton ... v. Kirsch, 68 Ill. 261; Tiedeman on Municipal Corp. Sec ... 156; McGear ... [142 F. 115.] ... of criminal cases, so far as applicable, shall govern the ... proceedings of city and police courts' (Mansf. Dig. Sec ... 2356 (Ind. T. Ann. St. 1899, Sec. 1699)), is a ... ...
-
Gulf Pipe Line Co. v. Vanderberg
...C., S. & Memphis R. R. v. Summers, 45 Ark. 295; Gage v. Maryatt, 9 Mont. 265, 23 P. 337; Lowe v. Stringham, 14 Wis. 222; City of Alton v. Kirsch et al., 68 Ill. 261. No case from Kansas, from which state our Code of Civil Procedure was taken, deciding the question here involved has been cal......
-
Village of Riverside v. Kuhne
...relating to proceedings before justices of the peace that no written pleadings are required; see also the earlier case of City of Alton v. Kirsch, 68 Ill. 261. The warrant in this case was issued on the sworn complaint of the chief of police of Riverside, as required by section 10-8 of the ......