, 1874-11-17
And Claim 4 Re-! cnt Decision Of Tho Supreme
Conl1. Sustains Them.
Tho Judge Takts tho Question Of Enter.
tanning the' Motion Under Aa-
svisement.

tho Indictment Tho room WaB 1ull OF pooplG,
but tho Hagc caao aluno did not attract tbem,
tho ecsBion bolug tho opening ono Of tho Court.
Thore wcrc proscnt of counsel for Sff. Gage,
Writ Dcxser. Esq, and tho Hou. Lconard swott,
Stato's Attorney Rocd appearing for tho People.
Tie caao had beon dc closod under tile change
Of yonuo from Cook Co, ,nty, and, after tho Court
Ind disposed OF q number Of motions in 1niuor
caaeH,
1fn. t;wETT
aroao md said ho tscsi:a.d to cn:or motion to
q,,ash the Indictment In tho caso Of THO People
rs. D. 4. Gage. a siui!lar motion lad been
malo while The caso wus ponding IL cook Coan-
tn but 1t was ovo1rulod. .and pfoa of not guilty
Ind beon entered. Tie object iu rouowing tho
motion was not that he expected dlfforont
ruling from that given by Judge Rogore, but
new facss had como to light showing TINT tho
previous ruling, as 10 understood, Qt1ashcd
instead Of sustaining tho iudictmont. Ho was
50 confident of this, that lt' md AIR. Dexter had
thought it proper to como up before the case
was rcac1lol, aud mako tho motion, TO as not to
subject tho county to tic .sxponse Of bringing
tho Witnesses if 1t should prt'ye unnecessary.
lilo then went on to etate t1 facts OF tho case,
citing tho law Of 1868, upon which tho inllct-
ueut B based, contondin4 nH before, that wficr-
over t1oro was 0 revision Of tllo subject matter,
nnd specia} regulations wore Iaaao, ~ required
BY tho net Of 1853, providing q. special cl,artor
for Chicago, that revision and thoso regulations
repealed by implication tho former law; also,
that tho general statute could not apply to tho
CITY OF Chicago, because citIas or municipal
corporations woro not mentioned In it, Hnco
tcro sscro no cities in tho State at the time tho
law Of 1888 was passed. In support Of this, ho
read from decision in tho caso Of Grccn I'll.
Ncoder. a2 Michigan, in which it WAS held that,
whore there woro two acta or twt, provisions, ono
of which was special or particular, and certainly
included tho mattcr In question, and tho other
general, which, II standing alone, would include
the eamo matter, md this copfuctcd with tho
special act or provision, tho srt!cial must bo
taken Us intended to constitute ars exception to
tho gouoral net or provision.
llr. Heed suggested that tho frat question
ought to bo
WHETHER TIE COURT WOULD ENTERTAIN TIE Mo-
TloN TO QuAeu.
The Court remaked that ho iuten ded to ask
that question.
Nir. SWEET roiolncd that vhetho': tho Court
would entertain the motion WAS matter OF dis
cretiou. and it seemed to him that oil tic facts
should bo stated in order that tho lsoult might
pasa upon the question inteliigently. lo thon
proceeded with his statement saying kaashe bud
recently discovered
NEW PROVISION
in the city charter under the heading OF The
powers aud duties Of officers generally" THUS
was:
II my person, having lccn m otlicor In said city,
shal. not, within ten days after notification and re-
papers ana effects Of every description III hi posses
be hcl he sha forfeit and uy the Ct tho city
sio0 besides all unsges efet by hls nsaI or r.
RECOVER possession OF the hcoke rapcrsaua nropcrty
appcrtanng 10 his o'ics III s manner pIeatnIbyd by
tic aws ot This State. ss q. Gimp D. act Of Fes. H.
1868.
IIo claimed that this provision YVES OVERLOOKED
by counsel BEFORE aud not considered hy tho
Court that, II 1t had beell, tha indictment wonld
have been quaaned. Slnce tho acclsion Of A'udge
Rogers,
THE supnEME COURT OF ILLINOIS
Ind decided cahe. holding substantially that hc
was wrong il. requiring that thoro should. DO q
special provision OIL tho subjcct OF not r1.yinG
over III order tliat tho revision Of this subject
by implication should repeal the former st,unte.
Iii otler words. there wns direct aeclsieaa Of
tho Supreme Court that, without tue particular
clause he lad read, tho Indictment should be
gunsllel because the revision OF tho law repealed
/ paying over. Tho act of 1853 provided TINT an
officer was to 10 punished for not paying pscr
tho funds whom ho SHOULD te tllereto required
| BY law aud demand made. Therefore tho In
| dictment should contain thu ayornont TINT Q;h3e
was required to pay over, and that domuud was
| made, aud there must be- Foine Law rcqulrl1 &
linn to nay over. otherwise tho Indictment m1u,t
ho nun1hea for Want Of a statute unon which it
coufI rant. 'rIe Indictment could not reut NM,
tho general reauiremont Of tho CITY clnrter th,zt
| Mi 6Sicnra alali rav over within ten Jays froin
tia tin,a acnand waa ,nntlc. becuuao II was mt
frarne.l ,,nder Il and did not ayor tLnt Gage wa
called upon to turn m over, and failed after tor,
doxH Il nverrcIl nnncrn,.v that la NM ronnirel
H~'law to INV ovar ani tkat dcunnd wan mnf,c
,,non ~" him IN md IN fcile1 to INV over. In hia
oi,iuion, thero yas no law upoi, which tho jn-
dintmnns cn,1,d % stanil: anl In Ind Tie statutes
carofnly axaminci m lint noint.
EvEny OTHER orr1cra
mu4t INV over but thcro wus no general law or
| sneclal Inv in re2atiun to tho CIV Truayuror
whctLor t.ere wag s11cI an olfense u moi In payipg
over known to tic common iaw. liz usrme;
TINT there was no sucll thing. and Blnnortcl lis
nusit|on by authoritca, S, liz, oply law rouuiring
Gnge to ply osor was the provision Of tho city
chatter cited by lin. Subsequent totho decision
strued by tSe Legislature, ana an net had been
rassed revising It, Tho new act WIS in the Bnn,o
|