Case ID: ill-app_204/html/0124-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Dibell", "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. Otto Wallin, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 6,332.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Error to the County Court of Lake county; the Hon. Perky L. Persons, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Opinion filed February 10, 1917.
    Statement of the Case.
    Prosecution by the People of the State of Illinois, plaintiff, against Otto Wallin, defendant, charging him with a violation of the Anti-Saloon Act. From a judgment of conviction on fifteen counts and fines aggregating $1,150 and sentence to imprisonment for thirty days, defendant brings error.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Intoxicating liquors, § 147
      
      —when evidence is insufficient to prove drinking of malt liquor in saloon. In a prosecution for violation of the Anti-Saloon Act, evidence held insufficient to show beyond a reasonable doubt that “buck,” an alleged malt liquor, was drunk by certain persons in defendant’s saloon.
    2. Criminal law, § 594*—when judgment of conviction on all counts of information should he affirmed or reversed as to all. A judgment of conviction on all counts of an information must be affirmed or reversed as to all and cannot be affirmed as to part and reversed as to part.
    3. Intoxicating liquors, § 128*—when judgment of conviction on all counts of information cannot he sustained. A judgment of conviction on all counts of an information under the Anti-Saloon Act cannot be sustained by testimony as to sales down to the time of trial.
    P. L. Jorgenson, for plaintiff in error.
    Ralph J. Dady and E. M. Runyard, for defendant in error; W. F. Weiss, of counsel.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same r topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Dibell

delivered the opinion of the court.