The People v. 123 Punch Boards

Illinois Supreme Court

The People v. 123 Punch Boards

134 N.E.2d 763, 8 Ill. 2d 520, 1956 Ill. LEXIS 284

CourtIllinois Supreme Court

DecidedMay 23, 1956

Docket33859

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 134 N.E.2d 763 (The People v. 123 Punch Boards) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

The People v. 123 Punch Boards, 134 N.E.2d 763, 8 Ill. 2d 520, 1956 Ill. LEXIS 284 (Ill. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice HershEy

delivered the opinion of the court:

The State’s Attorney of Bureau County filed a petition in the county court to have certain property declared contraband and to have it destroyed or confiscated. The property consisted of 123 punch boards, two Western Union teletype machines, two pinball machines, $682 and $2706.99 of United States currency, and $398.89 of negotiable checks or bank drafts. After a hearing, the court ordered part of the property destroyed and the balance confiscated.

The appellant, Harry A. Cassiday, the owner of the property, appeals directly to this court, presumably on the theory that a constitutional question is involved. Appellant’s “Points and Authorities” and “Argument” are confined to a single issue: namely, whether the county court had jurisdiction of the subject matter. In this regard, he cites the statute which limits the jurisdiction of county courts to' cases where the amount claimed or the value of the property in controversy does not exceed $2000. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1955, chap. 37, par. 177.) The value of the property here declared contraband being more than $2000, it is urged that the county court was without jurisdiction in the case. But this presents a problem of statutory construction only, no constitutional question being involved. And since this is the sole argument advanced in his original brief and since new points raised for the first time by reply brief will not be considered, all other allegations of error are deemed waived. (Supreme Court Rule 39; Ill. Rev. Stat. 1955, chap. 110, par. 101.39; People ex rel. Frailey v. McNeely, 376 Ill. 64, 70; County of Du Page v. Henderson, 402 Ill. 179, 190.) Accordingly, there is no basis for direct appeal to this court.

The cause is transferred to the Appellate Court, Second District.

Cause transferred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Chief Justice HershEy

delivered the opinion of the court:

The State’s Attorney of Bureau County filed a petition in the county court to have certain property declared contraband and to have it destroyed or confiscated. The property consisted of 123 punch boards, two Western Union teletype machines, two pinball machines, $682 and $2706.99 of United States currency, and $398.89 of negotiable checks or bank drafts. After a hearing, the court ordered part of the property destroyed and the balance confiscated.

The appellant, Harry A. Cassiday, the owner of the property, appeals directly to this court, presumably on the theory that a constitutional question is involved. Appellant’s “Points and Authorities” and “Argument” are confined to a single issue: namely, whether the county court had jurisdiction of the subject matter. In this regard, he cites the statute which limits the jurisdiction of county courts to' cases where the amount claimed or the value of the property in controversy does not exceed $2000. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1955, chap. 37, par. 177.) The value of the property here declared contraband being more than $2000, it is urged that the county court was without jurisdiction in the case. But this presents a problem of statutory construction only, no constitutional question being involved. And since this is the sole argument advanced in his original brief and since new points raised for the first time by reply brief will not be considered, all other allegations of error are deemed waived. (Supreme Court Rule 39; Ill. Rev. Stat. 1955, chap. 110, par. 101.39; People ex rel. Frailey v. McNeely, 376 Ill. 64, 70; County of Du Page v. Henderson, 402 Ill. 179, 190.) Accordingly, there is no basis for direct appeal to this court.

The cause is transferred to the Appellate Court, Second District.

Cause transferred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 N.E.2d 763, 8 Ill. 2d 520, 1956 Ill. LEXIS 284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-people-v-123-punch-boards-ill-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack