Case ID: ill-app_208/html/0028-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Eldredge", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. John A. Phares, Plaintiff in Error.
    (Not to he reported in full.)
    Error to the County Court of De Witt county; the Hon. Frederick C. Hill, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1917.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed October 11, 1917.
    Statement of the Case.
    Information by the People of the State of Illinois, plaintiff, against John A. Phares, defendant, charging defendant with the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors in anti-saloon territory and with keeping a common nuisance in anti-saloon territory. To reverse a judgment finding him guilty of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors in anti-saloon territory, defendant prosecutes this writ of error.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Juey, § 80
      
      —what is not improper examination of furor in criminal case. On an information charging the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors in anti-saloon territory, an examination of a juror hy the State’s Attorney which first states the substance of the statute under which the information is brought and then asks the juror, in substance, whether he would recognize that principle of law if, under the evidence, the case should he a proper one in which to apply the law, is not objectionable, especially where no showing is made that any juror was prejudiced thereby or that the peremptory challenges of defendant had been exhausted when the question was asked.
    2. Criminal law, § 147*—when question on cross-examination improper as calling for conclusion of witness. On an information charging the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors in anti-saloon territory, an objection is properly sustained to the question put hy defendant on his cross-examination of a witness, as to whether the witness ordered or bought the beer from defendant, as such question called for a conclusion of fact which was for the jury to determine.
    3. Intoxicating liquors, § 151*—when evidence sustains conviction for illegal sale in anti-saloon territory. On an information charging the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors in anti-saloon territory, evidence held sufficient to support a conviction.
    A. F. Miller, Frank K. Lemon and Edward J. Sweeney, for plaintiff in error.
    Edward J. Brundage, Arthur R. Roy and Grover C. Hoff, for defendant in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Eldredge

delivered the opinion of the court.