how a small matter like the receivership and a few hundred dollars rents collected can become so complicated as is in this case shown by this record. It all comes from respondent keeping all the money and refusing to make any report or account of it until compelled by order of the court and then attempting to hold onto as much of it as he could. He finally succeeded in retaining $110 which belongs to C. A. Riehm. If respondent had shown the energy and resourcefulness in promptly and honestly discharging his duties in the premises that he has shown in trying to justify his conduct, it would have been a very simple matter to have satisfactorily explained the charges against him in the information. No one can read this record without being convinced that respondent has not acted honestly and in good faith in this matter but has appropriated his client's money.

Respondent's explanation of the charge in the second count is, that through his instrumentality and moral persuasion the State Board of Pharmacy has not prosecuted Paul for forgery in obtaining an apprentice certificate and Massarek has not prosecuted him for embezzlement, although neither has entered into any agreement to that effect. He has never procured the apprentice certificate from the board of pharmacy for Paul. By his contract he was to receive $100 for his services whether he procured the certificate and the release from Massarek or not, and if he failed to procure the certificate and the release, $200 of the money paid him by Paul was to be returned. Respondent has not complied with the terms of his agreement. Conceding, as is claimed by the respondent, that Paul's conduct has been criminal, this would not justify respondent in refusing to perform his agreement. Whatever Paul's character may be, respondent agreed if he did not procure the return of the apprentice certificate to him and a release from prosecution by Massarek he would return to Paul the $200. We agree with the commissioner that no excuse is shown for refus

ing to return the $200. When an attorney uses his client's money and refuses or fails to return it when called for, his conduct justifies disbarment. (People v. Pattison, 241. Ill. 89; People v. Holt, 279 id. 107.) He will not be allowed to justify his acts by a claim for fees to which he is not entitled. People v. Bamborough, 255 Ill. 92.

The evidence, according to the rules of practice in such cases, (People v. Stonecipher, 271 Ill. 506,) supports the report and conclusions of the commissioner and the rule against respondent will be made absolute. His name is ordered stricken from the roll of attorneys.

Rule made absolute.

(No. 12770.-Reversed and remanded.)

ADAM MCCRAY et al. Appellants, vs. THE CITY OF CHICAGO et al. Appellees.

Opinion filed February 18, 1920-Rehearing denied April 7, 1920.

1. ORDINANCES-part of section 605 of Chicago code, providing for use of wood lath and plaster, is void. Section 605 of the Chicago code of 1911, providing for the use of wood lath and plaster of certain specifications in dwelling houses, must be construed as permitting the use of lath and plaster, only, and such provision is void as discriminating against the use of other materials or substitutes which are just as safe as the lath and plaster specified.

2. SAME what is necessary to justify interference with lawful business or rights of property owners. The exercise of the police power cannot be made a mere cloak for the arbitrary interference with or suppression of a lawful business, and to justify the public authorities in interfering with the rights and privileges of the owners of property it must appear that the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require such interference.

3. SAME-laws in exercise of police power are subject to supervision of courts. Laws enacted in the exercise of the police power, whether by a municipal corporation acting in pursuance of the laws of a State or by a State itself, must be reasonable and are subject to the State and Federal constitutions, and the decision of the legislative body that the law or ordinance is reasonable is subject to the supervision of the courts.

4. SAME-party attacking an ordinance must show it is unreasonable. The party attacking an ordinance in the exercise of the police power because it is unreasonable must show affirmatively wherein the ordinance is unreasonable.

5. SAME when court will hold ordinance invalid on the ground that it is unreasonable. An ordinance passed in the exercise of the police power should be sustained if there is room for a difference of opinion as to whether or not the public safety will be promoted thereby, but the court will not hesitate to hold it invalid when it is clearly manifest from the evidence that it is the result of arbitrary action by the city authorities.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. CHARLES M. FOELL, Judge, presiding.

CUTTING, MOORE & SIDLEY, GUY VANSCHAICK, and EDWARD H. Stearns, (Charles S. CUTTING, of counsel,) for appellants.

SAMUEL A. ETTELSON, Corporation Counsel, (LEON HORNSTEIN, of counsel,) for appellees.

Mr. JUSTICE CARTER delivered the opinion of the court: This is an appeal from a decree of the superior court of Cook county dismissing for want of equity a bill for injunction filed by appellants seeking to restrain the enforcement of an ordinance of the city of Chicago as to the use of certain material other than wood lath and plaster as a lining for walls and ceilings. The trial judge certified that the validity of an ordinance was involved and the cause was one involving public interests and should be taken direct to this court. This appeal followed.

The principal, if not the only, question involved is the reasonableness of section 605 of the Chicago code of 1911. That portion of the ordinance necessary to be construed to reach a proper conclusion on this question reads as follows: “605.—Wood Lathing and Plastering.

"(a) In all buildings of ordinary construction, where the use of wood lath and plaster is permitted under the

provisions of this chapter, such wood lath and plaster shall be done in accordance with these specifications: Wood lath shall not be over one and one-half inches wide, and shall be nailed to each stud, joist or bearing with not less than a three-penny fine 16-gauge nail; lath to have joints broken with not over seven lath to a break; lath to be spaced not less than one-fourth of an inch apart. All wood lath must be covered with at least two coats of plaster, such lath and plaster to finish to a total thickness of at least seven-eighths of an inch; no dirty or loamy sand to be used in the mortar or plaster.

"(b) In every building of ordinary construction which contains one or more rooms used for habitation or living purposes, the walls and ceilings of all rooms, including stores, (except basement and the attic rooms not used for habitation or living purposes,) throughout the building shall be covered with not less than two coats of plaster of the thickness and quality hereinbefore in this section prescribed."

The complainants, husband and wife, are the owners of a lot in Chicago on which they were erecting a building the walls and ceilings of which were being lined with material known as "Preferred Bestwall" three-eighths of an inch thick. They were ordered by the building commissioner of Chicago to cease work in putting this material on the walls and ceilings, and according to the allegations of the bill he threatened the arrest of the workmen unless they discontinued the use of Bestwall and used in place thereof wood lathing and plaster. As the result of the city's action appellants allege that they have been deprived of the right to use Preferred Bestwall in their building, to their great detriment and loss.

Bestwall is a standard and well known product manufactured by the Bestwall Manufacturing Company, a corporation licensed in Illinois, its material being sold widely throughout the country as an alternative or substitute for lath and plaster. The evidence in the record shows that

it has been indorsed and recommended, after a thorough and complete examination, by the officials of the Underwriters' Laboratories, the Armour Institute of Chicago and other institutions; that it has been passed upon favorably by the United States Bureau of Standards, United States Shipping Board and United States Industrial Housing Board, these bodies holding that it is a satisfactory and complete interior finish for walls in the place of lath and plaster; that it has been extensively used by the War Department, Navy Department and Ordnance Department of the United States government in hospitals and other government buildings. The evidence also tends to show by parties well informed as to different wallboards on the market, that Preferred Bestwall is as good a fire retardant and has as good non-combustible qualities as lath and plaster. Some of the witnesses testified that it had better qualities; that it had greater strength and was more impervious to and had greater resistance against water, moisture and wind; that it was a better conservator of heat and did not crack or deteriorate as rapidly; that it was not as subject to discoloration, was more sanitary and less liable to harbor vermin; that it was kiln dried and did not require drying out before use after being in place and was less expensive and required less labor to install than lath and plaster. The evidence also shows that Preferred Bestwall three-eighths of an inch thick is composed of a core of calcined gypsum mixed with about fifteen per cent of sawdust compressed between two sheets of very strong, tough paper, so sized that it is practically waterproof and of such a character that it will not readily support combustion. It is mixed and pressed out by machinery and cut to the required sizes of four feet wide by seven, eight, nine and ten feet long and dried in kilns. The outside of the paper covering is made as hard and dense as possible, while the inner surface is specially prepared so that the fibers inhere in the mass of gypsum as it crystallizes in drying, with