between the supposed formation of the new district and the filing of the information, and the proceedings taken in the interval were not of such a character as to be productive of great hardship or serious injury.

The demurrer to the pleas was properly sustained. The judgment will be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

THE PEOPLE ex rel. C. E. Landers, County Collector, Appellee, vs. THE CAIRO, VINCENNES AND CHICAGO RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant.

Opinion filed December 17, 1912.

TAXES-what is not necessary to validity of an additional road tax under amended section 14 of Roads and Bridges law. It is not necessary to the validity of an additional road tax under section 14 of the Roads and Bridges act of 1911, that the certificates of the highway commissioners shall give reasons which are special as distinguished from ordinary maintenance of roads and bridges.

APPEAL from the County Court of Montgomery county; the Hon. JOHN L. DRYER, Judge, presiding.

George B. Gillespie, (R. J. CarY, HILL & BUllingTON, and GILLESPIE & FITZGERALD, of counsel,) for appellant.

HARRY C. STUTTLE, State's Attorney, and Harry L. BALLARD, for appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE CARTWRIGHT delivered the opinion of the court:

We are called upon in this case to decide upon the sufficiency of certificates made by the commissioners of highways of the towns of East Fork, Hillsboro and Butler Grove, in Montgomery county, to the boards of town

auditors and assessors of their respective towns, asking for additional levies of twenty-five cents on each $100 of taxable property. The county court of that county regarded the certificates as sufficient, overruled objections to the taxes and rendered judgment accordingly.

In the town of East Fork the commissioners certified that a greater levy than thirty-six cents on each $100 of taxable property was needed for the reason that they were laying out and improving a new road east of New Boston, and they asked for an additional levy of twenty-five cents on each $100. The board of town auditors and assessor consented to the additional levy, stating the same reason in their consent. In the town of Hillsboro the certificate of the commissioners was that a greater levy was needed for the reason that they were laying out and improving a new road south of Taylor Springs. They asked for an additional levy for that reason, and the board of town auditors and assessor consented.

In Butler Grove the commissioners of highways certified to the board of auditors and assessor as the reason for asking for an additional levy, that the levy of thirtysix cents allowed by law was insufficient to maintain the roads and bridges of the town, and the consent given by the board of auditors and assessor stated the same reason. It is argued that the certificates were not sufficient because they did not give reasons which were special as distinguished from the ordinary maintenance of roads and bridges. This court has decided in a number of cases submitted at the same term as this one, that certificates of the same character as these comply with the law.

Judgment affirmed.

GUST JOHNSON, Plaintiff in Error, vs. THE COUNTY OF WINNEBAGO, Defendant in Error.

Opinion filed December 17, 1912.

1. ELECTIONS-under the City Elections act the city must pay miscellaneous expenses incurred by board of election commissioners. Under section 1 of article 7 of the City Elections act a city which has adopted such law must pay all miscellaneous expenses incurred by the board of election commissioners, notwithstanding the provision of the general Ballot law requiring the county to pay the expenses of holding all elections other than those in cities, villages and incorporated towns. (Bolles v. Prince, 250 Ill. 36, adhered to.)

2. SAME when county is not liable for expense of distributing election supplies in city. Where a city has adopted the City Elections act, the city, and not the county, is liable for the expense of distributing the booths, ballot-boxes and other election supplies to the various polling places in the city, notwithstanding the election is a special primary election for a judicial circuit embracing the county, but which was conducted, within the limits of the city, by the board of election commissioners. (People v. Bowman, 253 Ill. 234, explained.)

WRIT OF ERROR to the Appellate Court for the Second District;-heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Winnebago county; the Hon. ARTHUr H. Frost, Judge, presiding.

A. PHILIP SMITH, for plaintiff in error.

HARRY B. NORTH, for defendant in error.

Mr. JUSTICE COOKE delivered the opinion of the court:

Gust Johnson, the plaintiff in error, brought suit in assumpsit in the circuit court of Winnebago county against the county of Winnebago to recover the sum of $20 alleged to be due him for work and labor. Trial was had before the court without a jury upon a stipulation of facts, and resulted in a judgment in favor of the defendant. John

son appealed to the Appellate Court for the Second District, where the judgment of the circuit court was affirmed. The Appellate Court granted a certificate of importance, and the record has been brought to this court by writ of error.

From the stipulation of facts it appears that the city of Rockford, in Winnebago county, has adopted the City Election law; that election commissioners have been selected in accordance with the provisions of that act, and that such commissioners have full charge of all elections held within the city of Rockford; that on February 25, 1911, a special primary election was held in the seventeenth judicial circuit, which includes the county of Winnebago, to choose nominees for the office of judge of the circuit court of that circuit; that the board of election commissioners took charge of and conducted said primary election in the city of Rockford, and, among other things, engaged the plaintiff in error, Johnson, to deliver to the various polling places in the city of Rockford the booths, ballots, ballot-boxes, guard-rails and other articles necessary for conducting said election, and agreed with him that he should receive there for the sum of $20; that Johnson delivered the election supplies to the various voting places as directed but has not received any compensation therefor; that $20 is a reasonable, customary and usual charge for the services performed by him; that Johnson has requested the board of election commissioners and the board. of supervisors of the county of Winnebago to pay him the said sum for his services but they have refused to do so.

The principal controversy in the case is whether the county of Winnebago is liable for expenses incurred by the board of election commissioners of the city of Rockford in holding the special primary election, or whether such expenses are properly chargeable against the city of Rockford. Section 1 of article 7 of the City Election act provides that "all expenses incurred by such board of election

commissioners shall be paid by such city" as has adopted the act. In Bolles v. Prince, 250 Ill. 36, we were called upon to construe this section and to determine what expenses should be borne by a city that had adopted the City Election act. We there held that the city shall be liable for all miscellaneous expenses incurred by the board of election commissioners. The expenses here involved undoubtedly come under the heading of "miscellaneous expenses," and having been incurred by the board of election commissioners, under the holding in the Bolles case must be paid by the city of Rockford.

Plaintiff in error insists, however, that the Bolles case should not govern here, for the reason that in that case the provisions of the general Ballot law of 1891 were not called to the attention of the court or considered by it. The position of plaintiff in error is, that the City Election act, having been enacted in 1885, before the passage of the general Ballot act of 1891, is modified by that act, which provides that the expense of holding all elections, other than elections in cities, villages, incorporated towns and towns, shall be borne by the county. In this contention he relies upon the provisions of the general Ballot law which require the county to pay all expenses of holding an election, and insists that the general act repeals, by implication, that portion of said section 1 of article 7 of the City Election act which requires any city adopting that act to pay all the expenses incurred by the board of election commissioners. There might be some force to this contention were it not for the fact that the City Election act has been repeatedly amended by the legislature and this provision has each time been carried forward as a part of the act as amended. In 1899, long after the passage of the general Ballot act, the whole of the City Election act was amended and thus re-enacted. Since then section of article 7 of that act has been amended several times, the last amendment being in 1909. In all these