*1 Dorwart, id. id. Evi 235; Cunningham is not dence -relation fiduciary a merely tending prove un sufficient to entitle the matter of a contestant to have does due evidence influence the jury. submitted to Such it is not unless create undue influence presumption is used further shown relation fiduciary Grosh v. the will. making purpose procuring Water Acom, James, Blackhurst v. supra; Hall, man v. id. 304.

There is in this record no taken which, evidence all the con- reasonable could be said to intendments, support tention unsound mind when either that testator was of un- the will was executed or that it was through procured due as to what might influence. Courts speculate have been the rests on facts a case but the burden This contestants to of undue influence. evidence produce burden was justified was not The chancellor discharged. the decree will the issue from the taking jury, affirmed. Decree affirmed.

(No. 19819 . People of Defendant Er Illinois, ror, vs. W. Plaintiff in Error. Linde, Opinion October Dec. Rehearing denied 3, 1930. filed *2 Dixon, &

Burry, (Arthur Johnstone, Peters error. counsel,) plaintiff Dixon, W. Carlstrom, Attorney General, C. Reed, Oscar Attorney, C. People. State’s Fitch, Joel Mr. reported opinion: Edmunds Commissioner Plaintiff in W. was tried before a error, Linde, justice for violation of section of Motor peace Vehicle act of as amended and was found and fined. guilty *3 He to the circuit court where appealed DuPage county, he a waived There jury. court, was a trial by resulting ' in a The and the of a fine. finding guilty imposition case is here on writ of in error error, contending plaintiff that section is in conflict with the fifth and fourteenth amendments of the constitution of United States sections of article of the constitution Illinois.

At the time of his arrest in error was plaintiff driving a truck trailer Route a one towing improved of Illinois. the trailer was a highways Upon steam shovel or crane. The on the front axle of 28,000 Green, the trailer was Mullenbruck & Na- pounds. Inc., owner of the crane and gel, employer plaintiff was a in construction error, work engaged corporation was where the crane cor- being transported place was then a road engaged building State poration bridge. that cranes The evidence disclosed the one in as ques- tion are used by construction contractors in heavy engaged construction work; that are there about one thousand of them in use in Illinois, cent of which have seventy-five per to be from transported job job; that cost about $10,000 each and with care will last about five proper years. The evidence further disclosed that had corporation owned the crane in question for six or seven that months; average it was used on a three or period job was four months, that it could not have been transported to which it place was enroute without a using State highway. Thomas F. Green, president corporation, testified that the could not be a successful bid- corporation der on construction to which the crane was jobs type moved unless such a crane could be that if being used; were barred from the its value would be as only junk; that all the contractors that he knew same doing of work type cranes; used such that it would be “imprac- ticable” to take the crane and re-assemble it, apart to do so of another crane. would assistance require Paul which B. district Cochrane, manager company manufactured the that it is crane, testified pos- physically them in sible to take such cranes apart transport sepa- rate units that it would but would be “impracticable;” and that such work crane to dismantle require them, drag of the ma- would a man well versed in the require makeup chine. treasurer of another construction H. Airey, Joseph the same kind of work as corporation doing company al- testified that it would be the crane in owning question, on any job to be a successful bidder most impossible of such a crane. use without type axle of the vehicle driven one weight through gross error in excess of permitted being by plaintiff *4 act Motor Vehicle (Cahill’s section Stat. be affirmed unless 95a, 3,)

chap. par. in error contends that such Plaintiff invalid. section is3 of vehicles to it of subject owners deprives provision their without due of law liberty property process denies them the law. In further- equal protection ance of this contention it is that includes “liberty” argued life, to in the right ordinary engage occupations such as that which the crane was being employed; methods of and tools in trade have developed transportation at a rate recent and under modern con- rapid during years ditions the use of such a crane is the ordinary thing; on the the crane is used the carry which occupation must be used to move from public highways place and un- section place; consequently improper reasonable interference with and that the liberty, provision is invalid such because discriminates between businesses as are conducted stone and sand and in which companies loads can be their individual heavy readily split bring up below the such as weights limit, and businesses prescribed that of the where company crane, up owning splitting loads is the Peo- heavy impracticable. position is that ple has and control authority State paramount over its that no one has an absolute and un- highways; qualified them; to use in the exercise of its right to limit General has police Assembly powers or the use of the kind of by any prohibit highways ychicle if neces- such limitation or is reasonably prohibition to save the sary from or injury and that even public safety welfare, though general result in a restriction of regulation liberty contract or use of there is no invasion of private property, or any constitution United guaranty States of the constitution of Illinois. has constitutional limits and

Although police power measure enacted or its exercise any must, be sustained, bear some reasonable relation to the purposes for which the exercised, although under the may not, legislature guise protecting pub- interfere with lic interests, arbitrarily private rights, *5 274 the of enact

authority States to such laws as deem reasonably necessary morals, to the health, promote public safety and welfare of general wide comprehends range and the discretion matters which determining of are to sufficiently general to be subjected importance Steele, and administration. regulation (Lawton v. .State U. Burns, Aurora v. All City Ill. 84.) S. of uses of or courses of conduct which are injurious property to the health, morals or safety may public prohibited the re by the exercise of the although may power State sult In inconvenience or loss to individuals. this respect individual to the the of rights yield rights pub higher lic. The that the exercise this regard power State the law of and is founded necessity overruling maxim salus est lex. existence populi suprema are an essential attribute of sover exercise of this power establishment government presupposes eignty, all the exer surrenders rights that the individual citizen hurtful to the citizens generally. cise which would prove Co. Where Rosehill Ill. Cemetery 555.) v. (People over interest involved, interest preferment public even interest to extent individual, property of the character of its is one destruction, distinguishing which affects of the istics of exercise every police power It is the Schoene, 272.) v. property. (Miller department govern function of the legislative proper to consider exercise of the ment in the police power use of inven from the new that arise and risks problems harmonize to adjust private rights tions and endeavor for pub statutes interests by comprehensive conflicting N. Co. v. New England lic welfare. (Smith Aircraft As the General its Under police power (Mass.) 385.) an act for the gen authority the same pass has sembly as to pass public eral property protection individual. of an of the property for act the general protection (Pe As to the Sisk, public ople streets, use them travel is right for purposes an absolute and unqualified one. It be limited controlled in the exercise of the police whenever necessary safety, promote morals peace, health, welfare general people, and is subject such reasonable and regulations impartial to this as are calculated to secure pursuant general from user largest benefit practical *6 of such the the safety of while public them. v. Adams Co. using Express Elie 300 Ill. 340; Chicago Coach Co. v. id. City Chicago, of 337 200; v. id. Haggenjos City Chicago, of 336 573.

This court will take judicial notice that the use of roads and vehicles of bridges by excessive is to result calculated not only injury to public property but also in danger all who travel such thoroughfares. v. (Murphy California, U. Jacobson v. Massa 623; S. 225 chusetts, Kansas, 11; id. Mugler 623; v. id. Pierce 197 123 Oil v. City id. Corp. Polglaise v. Com Hope, 498; 248 of monwealth, Va. 850, We must 897.) pre S. E. 114 76 sume that the fact legislature this and enacted recognized here statutory attacked for the of provision purpose of of promoting safety safety State property v. Pennsylvania, U. traveling (Powell public. S. 127 Durand v. 678; Dyson, Ill. The end thus 382.) sought 271 is We assume that legitimate. not appropriate less than those section are of weights by proscribed 3 class which it is to avoid or bringing danger sought in excess of those not weights do proscribed bring Snook, & Hamilton (Carley v. U. danger. (L. ed.) S. 74 There is this record or of which we nothing take notice to that the judicial indicate proscriptions of are not related to provision properly purpose thus The section is therefore valid. v. sought. Lochner York, Hardy, New Holden 366; U. v. id. 45; S. 169 198 Haskell, Kan- 104; Noble Bank v. id. v. Coppage 219 276

sas, 1; id. Rail Nashville, Chattanooga St. Louis 236 way White, Co. Foley, v. id. v. Chicago 456; City 278 335 584. far as the concerned,

So contention of discrimination it is sufficient to that the exercise say legislature may and some allowed classification, latitude the basis classi legislative selecting fication. That must be in a manner exercised pal pably it, review arbitrary judicial authorize clearly cannot be disturbed unless can courts see there is no fair reason for the law would force its extension to others whom require equal leaves Mis untouched. Harvester Co. v. (International souri, Snook, U. & v. Carley supra; Hamilton 199; S. v. Silver, v. Oil Co. ed.) Silver U. (L. 67; Standard S. Barbier id. Connolly, 27; v. Marysville, 582; Elliott, v. Christy Liberty v. 216 Ill. 31; Bagdonas Land Collins, Investment Co. v. 103; Weksler 309 id. id. Brest v. 132; id. People City Chicago, It Commissioners Insurance, N. (Mass.) 657.) incumbent one invoking protection fourteenth amendment show with convincing clarity *7 of which law of created discrimination Lowe, he Com. v. complains. (Corporation which makes statute, This (L. ed.) 517.) to those factor and which applies load determining loads who over transport propose dif- substantial actual, over certain rests weight, others, that class of individuals ference between or unreasonable discrimina- no such arbitrary involves it unconstitutional. tion court declaring as to justify is of the circuit court affirmed. The judgment Mr. reported : The foregoing opinion Per Curiam as hereby opinion Commissioner Edmunds accordance therewith. entered in court, ludgment affirmed.