, 1874-02-12
Decision in Virgins VS.. Chi
caEo.
The Lower Court Elnphatfca1Iy
~, Sustained.
Power Of the City to License Auction.
:. -. eers, Eto. .'-

| to give tho decision, written by Mr. Justice
| Walkor, which Is as follows:
Tho frat question presented is wTlethor Tue
Criminal Court Of Cook County Lad Jurisdiction
ovor tho subjeot-mnttcr OF tho appeal prosecuted
from tho Justice Of tho Pohco.
| It Is matter Of 10 consequence how tue caao
wna transferred from tho Police Magistrate
soully to tho Poloo Magistrate Banyon, as ap-
pel1ant appeared before the latter, aud
esso s to e. orm1s, ifa dal e n sRneasa sassts tas
having Jurisdiction Of tho subject niattor of
that ho has also acquired Jurisdiction Of tho
porson Of appellant, whom he entorol his appear
ese ss tle4e eto y e Cans M
however, Ia limited IN It's Jurisdiction bv our
present Constitution. It provides that It alall
have tho Jurisdiction Of Circuit Court In all
cases o. . criminal and quasi criminal natrro
cognizancea and appeals takon III that county in
tnrnablo and talton to that Court. II is, then,
necessary to determine whether this caao is Of .
quasi criminal nature, aB it Ia not claimed 10 ho'
criminal. Wharton, In his law lexicon, defines
quasi crime to bo tile act Of doing damage or owl
involuntarily. But this cannot DO tho senBo III
which tho frarnera Of our Constitution intended
section ia considered in tho light
Of our jurisprudence, no must conclude
that It was intended to embrace nil olronsos not
crinos or misdomoanors. but that are in tho
the public which have not boon declared crimes,
but wrongs, against tho general Or local public,
which 1t "a proper bhonld DO rcpreased OF nun.
shod BY forfeitufes and penalties. This would
embrace al ,qut tam actions aud forfeitures i'm
duty. A quaal crimo would no:..ombraco On i'll
diotablo offense, whatever might bo thoir grade,
but simply forfoitnres for wrong dono TO tho
public, whether voluntary Or involuntary,
| by criminal or civil proceas, md it would ON.
brace prosecutions for bastardy, and informa-
ttons IN the nature Of = quo warranto, etc. IN
accordance with those views it was hold in tIie
ssse Of Naylor va The City OF Galeaburg, GO Ill.,,
| latton Of a city ordinance was quasi GRIM
innl prosecution. That case is conclusive
| OF this question, and under It we must
Criminal Conrt Of Cook County aud It thus 40
| quirod jurisdiction.
Tho caso was submitted to tho Court below.
and tried without jury; and, aftor hearlng tho
defendant "guilty," and, iu rendering tho judg-
ment, 1t was ordered that ttho defendant 10
finod the num Of ESQ and pay tho costs" AID
awarded executions In favor Of tbs plaintiff. It
has been repeatedly hold by this Court that it il
SO thai II ii the substance Of . proper finding.
hIinkhart ~. Handler, IL Ill, 48; Bates vs..
Williams, 42 ILL., 400; Jarrard rs. Harper, "a
457 and Hsrtford 1s 7! laa Rro Insurance ,; Company
immatorial Whether tho Court said that ho found
the issues for tho plnniiE, md found it's debt to
be $50, Or found defendant guilty and rendered
Judgment Ag7:9o fort for that s SUN. ,u. ,..,,.
| ply strict technical rules in casoa
beforo Justicoa OF tho Peace, Or an
appeal as in case where there arc no writ
| ton pioaaings: Iu such cases substance and not
Sn~ S1I 1Fa 1an~ 1.I
that any precise form Of verdict is given In tho
books. The rules require that IT shall be re-
l sponsivo to tho Issue, but works On practice lay
down is a.rule that tho vordiot may bo pro-
form by tho Clerk, WHO should thoro road il to
tho jury to avoid al miBtnkes.
It tis urged that the Court below entered
Judgment for . tlna and not formal judgment
in dobt. It Is truo that tho Judgment does not
possess tho formal parts of q Judgment in dobt,
but Il ordors and adjudgos that dafondant DO
fined $50 and ,psy the cost Of tho proceeding,
and awards execution for it's collection. The
Judgment B unskillfully entored, but 1t IL ind-
ing and On ajudication and could bo oollected.
tits as formal as judgments usually entered by
Justices Of the peace. and on an appeal will
bn sustained. Soc Pendergraat Vs. The City of
Peru, 20 ILL.,, 81; Harton vs.. CTtchaeld, IS ILL.,,
1s5; Chicago & 4. I. 4. =. oo. Va. Whiplo, %
| ton.
It is contenIed that the Mayor, notwithatand-
| ing tho ordinance, had no power to rovoke tho
! license and that appellant was not liable to tho
penalty. Tho charter provides that the city ahall
havo power to tax, licenac, and regulate auction-
oors, diAtlers, ao. And It confors power to au-
thorizo tho Mayor power to grant licenses for tho
various purposes authorized under this provis-
| ion Of tho ohartor. The first section Of Chapter
| 23 Of tho ordinances provides that II the person
| licensed shall violate any ordinance relating to
his business, he shall he Liable to bo proceeded
against for any fiue Or penalty imposed thereby,
hi tHk ku
tho discretion OF tho Mayor. or Of tho court or
magistrate before whom he shall bo convicted Of
such violation. The ordinance prohibitd the
sale Of goods, chattols, and personal property
| under penalty OF forfeiting tho sum Of $50,
Thopowor conferred by tile charter to tax, H.
cense, aud regulate auctionee-s, authorized tho
| city to adopt auy reasonable ordinances for the
purpose. Tie charter points out no particular
regulate tho business Of auotionoors. Tho city
may not directly prohibit the business, nor can
it adopt such unreasonable regulations as would
produce auch results, OF even be oppressive, and
highly injurious to tue business. All means en-
p!oycd for the tnxas!on, license, and regulation
| Of tho business must be reasonable. And this
| ia true Of afl ordiuahOoa of city.
| Tho question then arisoa, Is this a reasonable
ordinnnco? The aum charged, tho leugth 81
time tho lcenRe Ia to continue, and tho required
boud aud security for tho faithful observance of
tile ordinances regulating tho business nro not
unreasonable requirements; nor do We sec that,
! in regulating tho brH1ness,a forfeiture OF tAo
ordinance, and that Ito Mayor should hayo the
| power Of revolving tho license, Wien he should
booomo satisfied Of the fact, is unreasonable or
| oppressive. Such provisions may DO tho only
enactuaI mode of regulating tie bnsineas. And
whether 1t is 80 Or hot, We regard the ordinance
| aB reasonable. The powor must reside somo-
whore to revoke tho llcsnae, and it it could only
| be dono BY the Courts, tho delays that could DO
produced in litigation would rondor such pro-
|
expire before = Aua determination could DO
| hl0+
It is alao urgcd that TO- determine tho grounds
OF forfeiture, and doo1aro it, Is judicial, aud
that tho Mayor cannot exercise such power, and
that ho la not Of the Magisttacy that belongs to
! the Judicial department OF tle State. It is
enough to say In reply to this objection that
| appellant agroed by receiving Tie licenso that
tho Mayor might exercise tho power ut his dis
| erection. This ia the !icense;
Permission Ii hereby given David Wiggns to follow
the yocation Of auct,onser ut No; q Weat Madison
street. r raid city until May !, 1879, subject to Tho
provisions OF ull the ordinances uUW III fprcn and tnt