contention of defendant error in Illinois

1931In Sascby v. Sonnemann, supra, the court in discussing a question of this character at page 609' says: “The provision of the constitution is, that one who is a member of one department of the State government cannot exercise the powers of another department.

1930Co., supra, sustains the contention of defendant in error, in view of the decision of our Supreme Court in The People v. Drysch, supra, nevertheless, we may say that the New York court announced its adherence to the general rule that a judgment will not be vacated, after term time, merely because it is based upon or procured by perjured testimony, but held, however, that the facts in that case proved that the attorney for the plaintiff, for the purpose of obtaining a verdict and judgment, inspired and manufactured perjured testimony and entered into a conspiracy with the witnesses who testifie

1928Among others are Smolen v. Industrial Com. 324 Ill. 32 , Superior Coal Co. v. Industrial Com. 321 id. 240, Otis Elevator Co. v. Industrial Com. 302 id. 90, City of Chicago v. Industrial Com. 292 id. 409, and Arnold Murdock Co. v. Industrial Com. 314 id. 251.

1924People v. Benton, 301 Ill. 32 ; People v. Chynoweth, 301 id. 65 ; People v. Edvander, 304 id. 400. • "Compact,” as defined by the late decisions of this court, means concentrated, or close or near to a certain center.

1924People v. Benton, 301 Ill. 32 ; People v. Chynoweth, 301 id. 65 ; People v. Edvander, 304 id. 400. • "Compact,” as defined by the late decisions of this court, means concentrated, or close or near to a certain center.

1923(See abstract and opinions in Doyle v. Fallows, 207 Ill.

1918We are referred to Wagner v. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Co. 277 Ill. 114 , as sustaining defendant in error’s position.

1914In support of the contention of defendant in error, counsel cite and rely on De Witt v. Berry, 134 U. S. 306 ; Carson v. Baillie, 19 Pa. 378 and Sweet v. Colgate, 20 Johns.

1909Co., 170 U. S. 675 .

1907In such cases it is not sufficient for' the defendant to come into court and say, T am doing all I can -to keep my chimneys from emitting dense smoke.’ He must show that his chimneys do not emit dense smoke.” This court held in Morton v. Town of Princeton, 18 Ill. 383 , that where a town ordinance made it a penal offense to ride or drive a horse furiously along a public street, the motive of the person so driving was proper for the consideration of the jury, where discretion is allowed in fixing the punishment.