proof of one or more elements not required of the other. To convict a defendant of section 16 — 1 theft, the State need not prove that the property is available only for hire. To convict a defendant of section 16 — 3 theft, the State need not prove either the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the use or benefit of the property or the value of the property. Nevertheless, defendant argues that the use of deception to obtain the temporary use of property that is available only for hire, such as a hotel suite, may be prosecuted only under section 16 — 3. He asserts that section 16 — 3 is “directed at precisely the sort of conduct” in which he allegedly engaged and that the legislature intended such conduct to be punished as a Class A misdemeanor. See Davis, 203 Ill. App. 3d at 844 (<HOLDING>). Defendant also calls our attention to the
holding that section 41  16 does not grant a waiver for claims of negligent supervision holding that section 16  3 did not apply to the defendants conduct of diverting the labor of city employees to their own purposes because section 16  3 is intended to protect businesses from the unscrupulous practices of prospective customers holding that a plaintiff could not base a claim on a violation of 16 del c  6634 because of the exclusionary provision in section 6636 which is clear from the text of the statute holding section 1325b did not apply to modification under section 1329 unless there is an objection from the trustee or from an unsecured creditor holding states are not persons for the purposes of section 1983