enacting clause in Illinois

1994App. 3d 719 , 390 N.E.2d 583 , the court held, in relation to a charge of driving while defendant’s license was suspended: "The general rule in Illinois is that where an act is made a crime and there are exceptions embraced in the enacting clause creating the offense which affect the description of that offense, the State must allege and prove that the accused does not come within the exception.

1993App. 3d at 720 , 390 N.E.2d at 585 .) This court rejected defendant’s argument and wrote the following: “The general rule in Illinois is that where an act is made a crime and there are exceptions embraced in the enacting clause creating the offense which affect the description of that offense, the State must allege and prove that the accused does not come within the exception.

1915A proviso which withdraws a case from the operation of the statute need not be negatived.” In the case of Lequat v. People, 11 Ill. 330 , the rule was stated as follows: “The rule is, if there be any exception in the same clause of the act which creates the offense, the indictment must show affirmatively that the defendant does not come within the exception; and if the exception or proviso be in a subsequent clause or statute, or if in the same section and not incorporated with the enacting clause by any words of reference, it is in that case matter of defense and need not be negatived in the

1915Where the exception is descriptive of the offense it must be negatived in order to charge the defendant with the offense, but if the exception or proviso is in a subsequent clause, or in the same one but not incorporated within the enacting clause by any words of reference, it need not be negatived but is a mere matter of defense, (Lequat v. People, 11 Ill. 330 ; Metzker v. People, 14 id. 101; Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Co. v. Carter, 20 id. 391; Beasley v. People, 89 id. 571.) If an act is prohibited except under certain conditions, the indictment must allege the circumstances fo

1922(Huddleston v. Francis, 124 Ill. 195 ; In re Day, 181 id. 73.) The proviso to section 91 excepts all elections held under the Community High School act from the general language previously employed and plainly requires that in all elections under the act ten notices shall be posted.

1893In Huddleston v. Francis et al., 124 Ill. 195 , we quoted and approved the following language from a note on page 118 of Potter’s Dwarris on Statutes: “The office of a proviso generally is, either to except something from the enacting clause, to qualify or restrain its generality, or to exclude some possible ground of misinterpretation of its extending to cases not intended to be brought within its purview.” See, also, Chicago v. Phœnix Ins.

1915In the case of Sokel v. People, 212 Ill. 238 , in holding that it was not necessary in a prosecution for bigamy to prove that the defendant was not within the exceptions mentioned in the proviso to the law, it was said: “It is the rule that where an act is made criminal, with exceptions embraced in the enacting clause creating the offense so as to be descriptive of it, the People must allege and prove that the defendant is not within the exceptions, so as to show that the precise crime has been committed.

1912In support of his contention as to the burden of proof plaintiff in error relies upon the rule stated in Sokel v. People, 212 Ill. 238 , as follows: “It is the rule that where an act is made criminal, with exceptions embraced in the enacting clause creating the offense so as to be descriptive of it, the People must allege and prove that the defendant is not within the exceptions, so as to show that the precise crime has been committed.

2018We disagree, as the State was not required to do so. ¶ 20 "It is well established that, where an act is made criminal with exceptions embraced in the enacting clause creating the offense, so as to be descriptive of it, the State must allege and prove that the defendant is not within the exceptions so as to show that the precise crime has been committed." People v. Fiumetto , 2018 IL App (2d) 170230 , ¶ 13, 424 Ill.Dec. 642 , 109 N.E.3d 756 (citing People v. Tolbert , 2016 IL 117846 , ¶ 14, 401 Ill.Dec. 1 , 49 N.E.3d 389 ).

2018We disagree, as the State was not required to do so. ¶ 20 "It is well established that, where an act is made criminal with exceptions embraced in the enacting clause creating the offense, so as to be descriptive of it, the State must allege and prove that the defendant is not within the exceptions so as to show that the precise crime has been committed." People v. Fiumetto , 2018 IL App (2d) 170230 , ¶ 13, 424 Ill.Dec. 642 , 109 N.E.3d 756 (citing People v. Tolbert , 2016 IL 117846 , ¶ 14, 401 Ill.Dec. 1 , 49 N.E.3d 389 ).

1936It would seem that the same policy which dictates a liberal construction of the statute in furtherance of its general beneficial purpose would necessitate a restricted construction of an exception by which its operation is limited and abridged. “. . .it seems to be a general rule of statutory construction, that provisos and exceptions in statutes, by which their generality is qualified or restrained, or by which something is excluded from their general provisions, are to be strictly construed.” And quoting from an opinion by Mr. Justice Story in United States v. Dickson, 15 Pet. 141 , the cour

1908It does not operate beyond the enacting clause, but as an exception of it or restraint upon it. — United States v. Dickson, 15 Pet. 141 ; Minis v. United States, id. 423; Boon v. Juliet, 1 Scam. 258 ; Spring v. Collector of Olney, 78 Ill. 101 ; City of Chicago v. Phœnix Ins.

1934(People v. Callicott, 322 Ill. 390 ; People v. Talbot, id. 416 ; People v. Butler, 268 id. 635; Sokel v. People, 212 id. 238.) ” The indictment under consideration is clearly within the rule- announced by the Supreme Court in that the exception not being incorporated in the enacting clause by any words of reference, there need not be a negative averment, but the exception would be a matter of defense', nor is the exception or proviso defining the offense so incorporated in the language of the definition that the offense cannot be described without reference to the exception, and moreover where

1934(People v. Callicott, 322 Ill. 390 ; People v. Talbot, id. 416 ; People v. Butler, 268 id. 635; Sokel v. People, 212 id. 238.) ” The indictment under consideration is clearly within the rule- announced by the Supreme Court in that the exception not being incorporated in the enacting clause by any words of reference, there need not be a negative averment, but the exception would be a matter of defense', nor is the exception or proviso defining the offense so incorporated in the language of the definition that the offense cannot be described without reference to the exception, and moreover where

1926(Metzker v. People, 14 Ill. 101 ; Sokel v. People, 212 id. 238 ; People v. Butter, 268 id. 635; People v. Callicott, ante, p. 390; Lequat v. People, 11 Ill. 330 ; State v. O’Donnell, 10 R.

1910It is a rule of pleading that “if there be any exception in the same clause of an act which creates an offense, an indictment should show affirmatively that the defendant does not come within the exception, but if the proviso or exception be in a subsequent clause or statute or is not connected with the enacting clause by words of reference it becomes matter of defense and need not be negatived in the pleading.” Metzker v. The People, 14 Ill. 101 .

1926(People v. Martin, 314 Ill. 110 ; People v. Barnes, id. 140 .) Where, however, the exception is not in the same clause of the act which creates the offense, there is no reference in the enacting clause to the exception, the exception is in nowise descriptive of the offense and is one which merely withdraws a case from the operation of a statute, it need not be negatived.

1926(People v. Martin, 314 Ill. 110 ; People v. Barnes, id. 140 .) Where, however, the exception is not in the same clause of the act which creates the offense, there is no reference in the enacting clause to the exception, the exception is in nowise descriptive of the offense and is one which merely withdraws a case from the operation of a statute, it need not be negatived.

1916(Hyman v. Bayne, 83 Ill. 256 .) In any event, therefore, it was incumbent on appellee to allege in some one of his pleadings, and prove, that the intentional violation of the Factory act was by an elective officer of appellant.

1892“It is a well recognized rule of pleading that where a statute is set up and relied on for a recovery or as a defense, the party pleading need not refer to or negative an exception or proviso, unless it is contained in the enacting clause.” Hyman v. Baine, 83 Ill. 256 ; Partones v. Holmes, 33 Ill.

1908It does not operate beyond the enacting clause, but as an exception of it or restraint upon it. — United States v. Dickson, 15 Pet. 141 ; Minis v. United States, id. 423; Boon v. Juliet, 1 Scam. 258 ; Spring v. Collector of Olney, 78 Ill. 101 ; City of Chicago v. Phœnix Ins.

1897(Spring v. Collector of Olney, 78 Ill. 101 .) The principle of construction requires the sound interpretation and meaning of the statute, taking into consideration the enacting clause, the saving clause and proviso, together with the title of the act, as under the constitution the title of the act must express the subject matter.

2018People v. Cuadrado , 214 Ill. 2d 79 , 87, 291 Ill.Dec. 638 , 824 N.E.2d 214 (2005). ¶ 13 It is well established that, where an act is made criminal with exceptions embraced in the enacting clause creating the offense, so as to be descriptive of it, the State must allege and prove that the defendant is not within the exceptions so as to show that the precise crime has been committed.

2018People v. Cuadrado , 214 Ill. 2d 79 , 87, 291 Ill.Dec. 638 , 824 N.E.2d 214 (2005). ¶ 13 It is well established that, where an act is made criminal with exceptions embraced in the enacting clause creating the offense, so as to be descriptive of it, the State must allege and prove that the defendant is not within the exceptions so as to show that the precise crime has been committed.

2018We disagree, as the State was not required to do so. ¶ 20 "It is well established that, where an act is made criminal with exceptions embraced in the enacting clause creating the offense, so as to be descriptive of it, the State must allege and prove that the defendant is not within the exceptions so as to show that the precise crime has been committed." People v. Fiumetto , 2018 IL App (2d) 170230 , ¶ 13, 424 Ill.Dec. 642 , 109 N.E.3d 756 (citing People v. Tolbert , 2016 IL 117846 , ¶ 14, 401 Ill.Dec. 1 , 49 N.E.3d 389 ).

2018We disagree, as the State was not required to do so. ¶ 20 "It is well established that, where an act is made criminal with exceptions embraced in the enacting clause creating the offense, so as to be descriptive of it, the State must allege and prove that the defendant is not within the exceptions so as to show that the precise crime has been committed." People v. Fiumetto , 2018 IL App (2d) 170230 , ¶ 13, 424 Ill.Dec. 642 , 109 N.E.3d 756 (citing People v. Tolbert , 2016 IL 117846 , ¶ 14, 401 Ill.Dec. 1 , 49 N.E.3d 389 ).

1983App. 3d 699 , 313 N.E.2d 529 , stating the rule that a party relying on a statute need not negative an exception or a proviso unless it is contained in the enacting clause rather than a subsequent clause.) However, the distinction is not important here because on appeal the village argues lack of evidence of notice both as a deficiency in Tracy’s prima facie case and as an affirmative defense.

1962The People v. Douglas, 281 Ill 478, 118 NE 94 .

1942Chicago Title and Trust Co. v. Village of Glencoe, 372 Ill. 280 , in passing upon the right of the city to use for corporate purposes excess money raised by the garbage tax, we said: “It would, therefore, appear that the levy of this additional tax was for the purpose of providing more revenue for a carrying out of one of the general corporate powers of the city, and the statute authorizing the tax does not provide for any special application of unexpended funds raised by such special tax.” It is claimed the enacting clause of the garbage act is not as broad as the title, and therefore the app

1938This court held to the contrary in Great Western Railroad Co. v. Hanks, 36 Ill. 281 .

1936(People v. Montgares, 347 Ill. 562 , and authorities cited.) Reference to the act under which the information was filed makes it apparent that the defendant’s point is without merit.

1936In short, a proviso carves special exceptions only out of the enacting-clause ; and those who set up any such exception must establish it as being within the words as well as within the reason thereof. ’ ’ Dickinson v. Rahn, 98 Ill.

1934In the consideration of the points made regarding the sufficiency of this indictment containing the several counts, we are of the opinion from the facts alleged that the defendant had sufficient notice of the crime' charged. ■ The Supreme Court in the consideration of this case, in its opinion in People v. Allen, supra, construed the indictment and the expression of the court in several respects as material in disposing of the contention of the defendant in regard to the sufficiency of the indictment in question.

1932This court has held that where the exception is not in the clause of the act creating or describing the offense, where there is no reference in the enacting clause to the exception, and the exception is one which merely withdraws the case from the operation of the statute, the exception need not be negatived. ( People v. Talbot , 322 Ill. 416 ; People v. Hollenbeck , id. 443 ; People v. Castree , id. 471 .) In each of these cases the indictment or information did not negative the possession of liquor in a private dwelling, as provided in section 40 of the act.

1932This court has held that where the exception is not in the clause of the act creating or describing the offense, where there is no reference in the enacting clause to the exception, and the exception is one which merely withdraws the case from the operation of the statute, the exception need not be negatived. ( People v. Talbot , 322 Ill. 416 ; People v. Hollenbeck , id. 443 ; People v. Castree , id. 471 .) In each of these cases the indictment or information did not negative the possession of liquor in a private dwelling, as provided in section 40 of the act.

1931(People v. Montgomery, 271 Ill. 580 ; Sokel v. People, 212 id. 238; Swigart v. People, 154 id. 284; Beasley v. People, 89 id. 571.) It is only where the exception is as to a necessary ingredient of the crime that it is necessary that a negative averment be included-in the charge.

1929People v. Dettenthaler, 118 Mich. 595 ; Sjoberg v. Security Savings and Loan Ass’11, 73 Minn. 203 ; State v. Burrow, 119 Tenn. 376 ; May v. Rice, 91 Ind. 546 ; State v. Patterson, 98 N. C. 660 ; State v. Rogers, 10 Nev. 250 ; Vinsani v. Knox, 27 Ark. 266 ; Walden v. Whighan, 120 Ga. 646 ; Mathis v. State, 31 Fla. 291 ; Commonwealth v. Illinois Central Railroad Co. 160 Ky. 745 .

1929People v. Dettenthaler, 118 Mich. 595 ; Sjoberg v. Security Savings and Loan Ass’11, 73 Minn. 203 ; State v. Burrow, 119 Tenn. 376 ; May v. Rice, 91 Ind. 546 ; State v. Patterson, 98 N. C. 660 ; State v. Rogers, 10 Nev. 250 ; Vinsani v. Knox, 27 Ark. 266 ; Walden v. Whighan, 120 Ga. 646 ; Mathis v. State, 31 Fla. 291 ; Commonwealth v. Illinois Central Railroad Co. 160 Ky. 745 .

1929People v. Dettenthaler, 118 Mich. 595 ; Sjoberg v. Security Savings and Loan Ass’11, 73 Minn. 203 ; State v. Burrow, 119 Tenn. 376 ; May v. Rice, 91 Ind. 546 ; State v. Patterson, 98 N. C. 660 ; State v. Rogers, 10 Nev. 250 ; Vinsani v. Knox, 27 Ark. 266 ; Walden v. Whighan, 120 Ga. 646 ; Mathis v. State, 31 Fla. 291 ; Commonwealth v. Illinois Central Railroad Co. 160 Ky. 745 .