diriarily called a newspaper, we do not believe yoiu would'
.be justified in holding it was not a newspaper.
. Sovfar as the legal definition of a newspaper is con-,
cerned, thispublication seems. to comewithhvsuch defini
tion. Webster defines a newspaper as "a sheet of paper
printed and distributed at statedintervals' for conveying
intelligence of passing events, advocating opinionsVetc."
There are a large number of legal interpretations of
newspapers. The gist-of these court interpretations is
that where a publication is regularly issued and gener
ally circulated, it will be regarded as a newspaper, as
, distinguished from .publications like literary, scientific,
religious, medical and legal journals, that are obviously '1
intended for one class of people.
This same interpretation is followed out in nurrier-
ous decisions of our own state: ' ;j
, ' Kerr vs.Hitt, 75 111., 51.
Maass vs. Hess 41 III. App., 282.
Rail ton vs. Lauder, 126 111., 219. '
Pehtzel vs. Squire, 161 111., 346.v , 1
j In the face of this line of decisions in our own state,
I all of which hold that a publication of almost any form or
shape which is issued at stated intervals and contains
general news and' goes to the general public, is a news;
paper, you would not be warranted in holding that the
publication which you have submitted to us is not a news-
paper; ' - '
It, therefore, must be construed. as a 'daily- news-
, paper for the purpose ofx distribution under the terms of
L Section 2471 of the code.
L Yours respectfully, '
f, . LEON HORNSTEIN, ;
1 , Assistant Corporation Counsel. " -j
Approved: , , ,
JOHN W. BECKWIJH,
, Acting Corporation-Counsel. i
That" settled the first battle. The law was clearly '
-. .-, ; r . . , . ' - I
xml | txt