Rice v. People

38 Ill. 435
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedApril 15, 1865
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 38 Ill. 435 (Rice v. People) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rice v. People, 38 Ill. 435 (Ill. 1865).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Breese

delivered, the opinion of the Court:

This was an indictment in the McLean Circuit Court against the plaintiff in error for selling spirituous liquors without a license, by a less quantity than one quart.

A motion to quash the indictment was overruled, and a trial was had on the plea of not guilty, and a verdict for the people. A motion for a new trial was entered by the defendant, which was overruled, to which the defendant excepted. 'A judgment was entered upon the verdict, to reverse which the defendant prosecutes this writ of error, and assigns for error that the name of the party to whom the liquor was sold, was not given in the indictment, nor was there any averment therein that the name of the purchaser was to the jury unknown ; and further, that there was no evidence that the offense was committed in the county of McLean.

Upon the first point, it was held by a majority of this court in Cannady v. The People, 17 Ill. 158, after a review of many authorities, that this averment was unnecessary.

Upon the other point, we think, the motion for a new trial should have been allowed, as it does not appear, from the testimony, all of which is preserved in the record, where the offense was committed ; it might have been in another State, for aught that is disclosed by the record.

The defendant asked the court to give this instruction to the jury, which the court refused:

“ The court instructs the jury that if they believe, from the evidence, the defendant had a license to sell liquor, they will find the defendant not guilty.”

This instruction was properly refused, for the reason there was no evidence on which to base it.

For refusing to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Judgment reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Gallegos
Appellate Court of Illinois, 1997
People v. Adams
641 N.E.2d 514 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1994)
People v. Manley
552 N.E.2d 1351 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1990)
People v. Savage
220 Ill. App. 32 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1920)
Fletcher v. State
1909 OK CR 59 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1909)
Moore v. People
37 N.E. 909 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1894)
Dougherty v. People
8 N.E. 673 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1886)
State v. Schweiter
27 Kan. 499 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1882)
Reid v. State
1 Ind. L. Rep. 756 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1881)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
38 Ill. 435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rice-v-people-ill-1865.