Case ID: ill-app_201/html/0170-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Presiding 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. Lyman Moore, Plaintiff in Error.
    (Not to he reported in full.)
    Error to the County Court of Christian county; the Hon. Charles A." Prater, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1915.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Opinion filed April 21, 1916.
    Statement of the Case.
    Prosecution by the People of the State of Illinois, plaintiff, against Lyman Moore, defendant, for the sale of intoxicating liquor in anti-saloon territory. To review a judgment entered against him, defendant prosecutes a writ of error.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Witnesses, § 243
      
      —what constitutes violation of right against self-incrimination. Service of notice and a subpoena duces tecum, calling for the production, by one on trial for selling intoxicating liquor in anti-saloon territory, of an internal revenue special tax stamp issued to a society of which he was president, held a violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights as guarantied by section 10 of article II of the Constitution, providing that no person shall be compelled to give evidence against himself.
    2. Intoxicating liquors, § 140*—when introduction of notice and subpoena duces tecum in evidence error. Introduction in evidence of a notice and subpoena duces tecum, served on the defendant in a prosecution for illegal sale of liquor in anti-saloon territory, calling for the production of an internal revenue special tax stamp issued to a society of which the defendant was president, held error.
    3. Intoxicating liquors, § 137*—when testimony of reporter in former case inadmissible. In a prosecution for selling intoxicating liquor in anti-saloon territory, the admission of testimony of a reporter, who had reported a trial of a case between the State and a certain party, that the defendant in the present case had testified that the defendant in that case was working for him, held error in the absence of preliminary proof showing how such testimony could have been competent, relevant or material.
    John E. Hogan and E. E. Dowell, for plaintiff in error.
    Harry B. Hershey, for defendant in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice Eldredge

delivered the opinion of the court.