Town of Collinsville v. Scanland

Citations

• 58 Ill. 221

Syllabus

<p>1. Ordinances—construction of a particular one. An ordinance of the town of Collinsville prohibiting the running at large of certain animals within the corporate limits of the town, provides, that any person being the owner of, or having the care of, any such animal, who shall suffer the same to run at large, etc., shall be subject to a certain penalty therein specified. In an action to recover the penalty for a violation of this ordinance, the proof disclosed these facts: that the defendant resided on his farm outside the limits of the town; that he had allowed the animals to run in a piece of w'oods near by; but that he wuitclied and cared for them daily, and would have prevented them from straying into the town in the present instance—which was the first—had it not been that he was suddenly called away to the bedside of a dying brother: Held, that this evidence clearly exonerated the defendant from the charge of suffering his animals to run at large within the corporate limits of the town.</p> <p>3. That an instruction by the court to the effect, that before the jury could find the defendant guilty, they must believe from the evidence, that the animals were so running at large within the limits, by sufferance of the defendant, but asserted the requirement of the ordinance.</p> <p>3. Same—what necessary to he shown to warrant a conviction. To subject a person to the penalty under this ordinance, he must, himself, have participated in the act, by suffering it to be done; which requires that he should have know'ingly permitted his animals to run at large within the town, or have been guilty of such negligent conduct, in enabling them to do so, as would have been equivalent thereto.</p>