« AnteriorContinuar »
ation for road and bridge purposes, and to file a certificate in the office of the county clerk, who shall present it to the county board at its regular September meeting.
It is insisted by appellee that the requirement of section 50 for holding a meeting between the first Tuesday in August and the first Tuesday in September is directory, only, and the failure to hold that meeting and determine the rate of the tax required does not invalidate a tax. This question was considered by this court in People v. Toledo, St. Louis and Western Railroad Co. 266 Ill. 112, and it was there held that both sections of the statute are mandatory and that a failure to comply with either of them invalidates the tax.
The judgment of the county court is reversed as to the road and bridge taxes of East Fork and Grisham townships and the cause remanded, with directions to sustain appellant's objections to those taxes and enter judgment only for the county tax objected to.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Defendant in Er
ror, vs. Otto SCHULTZ, Plaintiff in Error.
Opinion filed February 17, 1915.
1. CRIMINAL LAW-instructions not based upon evidence should not be given. On the trial of an issue of fact, only such instructions should be given as are based upon legitimate evidence, and if irrelevant instructions stating correct abstract rules of law calculated to mislead the jury are given, it will be reversible error.
2. SAME—when giving instructions defining manslaughter in a murder trial is reversible error. Where there is no evidence whatever which would reduce the crime of murder to manslaughter but the testimony is such that the defendant must be either innocent or guilty of murder, it is reversible error to give instructions defining the crime of manslaughter, which the jury followed in finding the defendant guilty of such crime, even though the judgment would not have been reversed had no such instruction been given.
ous, without regard to the particular person who holds office. We conclude that they are not mere agents to form a particular act or duty, but are officers for the formance of the general duties of the offices of'S: attorney and county superintendent of schools, and t was not unlawful to include their salaries, as fixed county board, in the item levied for the payment of officers' salaries.
The aggregate of the salaries of county judge attorney, assistant State's attorney, county superi of roads and assistant county superintendent of more than $8000, which was the amount levied f ment of county officers' salaries. The county con err in overruling appellant's objections to the
The same objection is made to the road and in both East Fork and Grisham townships, viz. was no meeting of the commissioners of highv tween the first Tuesday in August and the firs September, but the only meeting held by the ers, in both townships, was on the first Tuesda ber. The record shows that in the town of commissioners of highways met September 2 was the first Tuesday, and determined the a rate required for road and bridge purposes of East Fork the record shows the commis ways met the same day, September 2, 1913
vas and certified to the amount of taxes requi
picion bridge purposes. Section 50 of the Road
diaries, requires the commissioners of highways between the first T
y in August an in September, at a be named by the purpose of de ng the tax rat them to the cour
Section missioners of hi the first Tuese the county
*+ side of the
one r and
lear the ted with Tarter past e was in a itiff in error d him to go shot himself.” it there at the the ladies' room, I said, “Now we
This man told me i on the oth of No
was sore because I h me." He asked the
a letter from deceased. h (who also worked for e fire, and that deceased ror everything in order to
going to kill himself, and it was done with plaintiff in ked plaintiff in error if he bed about Rausch, and he replied,
He asked the witness what he iggested that he notify the police, the saloon, where the witness and red until the police came.
a police officer, testified that he was i business of plaintiff in error on the r 30, and other policemen arrived there i'clock. Plaintiff in error went with him .0 a side door that opened into the buildWRIT OF ERROR to the Criminal Court of Cook county; the Hon. CHARLES A. McDonald, Judge, presiding.
BRUNDAGE, LANDON & Holt, for plaintiff in error.
P. J. LUCEY, Attorney General, MACLAY HOYNE, State's Attorney, and GEORGE P. Ramsey, for the People.
Mr. Justice FARMER delivered the opinion of the court:
Plaintiff in error was indicted for the murder of Otto Schaffner in Cook county December 30, 1913. In May, 1914, he was tried, found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to an indeterminate term in the penitentiary. This writ of error is sued out to review the judgment of the criminal court.
Plaintiff in error is a cabinet-maker and at the time of the homicide had a shop in which he had carried on his business at 4300 Crawford avenue, Chicago, since some time in November, 1913. Before that he had a shop on Elston avenue near Crawford avenue. That place was burned some time in the late summer of 1913. The deceased was employed by plaintiff in error and worked in the shop on Crawford avenue from about December 1 until his death. He had previously worked for plaintiff in error in his shop on Elston avenue. During the month of December two fires started in the building occupied by plaintiff in error, but they were extinguished before any serious damage was done. Plaintiff in error, apparently acting on the suspicion that the fires in his premises were the work of incendiaries, was in his shop the evening of December 30, for the purpose, as he stated, of watching for the supposed incendiaries. Deceased was with him, apparently by his request. There were no lights in the building, and at about seven o'clock Schaffner was killed by a bullet from a revolver of thirty-two calibre, which entered his left temple one inch in front of and one inch above the canal of the ear, passed through the head and came out of the right side of the head about an inch higher and a half-inch further back than the place on the left side where it entered. No one was in the building with deceased but plaintiff in error and no one else heard the shot fired.
Jacob Pies operated a sash and door factory near the shop of plaintiff in error and had been acquainted with him for five years. Pies testified that about a quarter past seven o'clock in the evening of December 30 he was in a saloon across the street from the shop of plaintiff in error and plaintiff in error came to him and asked him to go across the street, and said, "The other fellow shot himself.” Pies asked plaintiff in error to tell about it there at the saloon, and suggested that they go back in the ladies' room, which they did. Plaintiff in error then said, “Now we know where all the fires came from. This man told me that he lit my place that burned down on the oth of November, and he did that because he was sore because I would not leave him divide out with me.” He asked the witness if his daughter had received a letter from deceased. He said deceased had given Rausch (who also worked for plaintiff in error) $10 to start the fire, and that deceased said he had told plaintiff in error everything in order to get rid of the trouble and was going to kill himself, and then fired the shot, and that it was done with plaintiff in error's revolver. Witness asked plaintiff in error if he believed what the deceased said about Rausch, and he replied, “That is what he told me.” He asked the witness what he should do, and witness suggested that he notify the police, and this was done from the saloon, where the witness and plaintiff in error remained until the police came.
Frank E. Johnson, a police officer, testified that he was called to the place of business of plaintiff in error on the evening of December 30, and other policemen arrived there about seven-forty o'clock. Plaintiff in error went with him to the shop and to a side door that opened into the build