The Jasper weekly courier. [volume] (Jasper, Ind.) 1858-1922, 1873-10-17

Decision OF the Supreme Court.
IT Is DECLARED CONSTITUTIONAL Alb
srRACr or THE JUDGES OPINION.

srRACr or TIE JUDGES OPINION.
ltSosihe Chicago Times
Douglass Strecter. appellant. vs. The
People OF the State OF Illinois. appellee.
Opinion by Scott. Justice. This was a
prosecution commenced before a Justice
OF the Peace against the appellant ior
selling intoxicating liquors without a
license. The Justice found him guilty,
and assessed a fine of $40. and rendered
judgment accordingly. On an appeal
taken TO the Circuit Court the cause was
submitted on an agreed state OF facts,
and the court pro forma found the APP
pcllant guilty, and entered Judgment
against him Of $40 and costs of suit. -
From the statement OF facts. il appears
the appellant resides near the city oi
Ottawa. LaSalle county. but not within
the limits OF any incorporated town or
city. That hc has never given the re-
quired bond and obtained license 30
Keep 4 grocery, as required by the first
section Of an act entitled An act 10
provide against the evils resulting from
the selling Of Intoxicating liquors in the
state OF Illinois, Approved Jan. 49,,
1872 And NJ his residence. az stated. lac
has repeatedly sold intoxicating liquors
~ less quantity than one quart. 10 any
person who desired 20 purchase 10 be
drunk on the premisc- by the 9ia~>. ahi
the liquor SO sold were drank hy The
persons purchasing. II j. provided IN
tho first section of che act under which
this prosecution wa, commenced. II shall
he unlawful for any person not having
4 license 10 keep grocery 10
sell in any quantities Intoxicating liquors
TO be drunk on the premises where sold.
or in any adjoining room. or any pace
of lublic resort connected herewith.
and no person shall be granted . license
without first giving bond 10 The mu
or authority authorized 10y
Law to gtant license. - the penal SUM OF
three thousand dollars. with two SUM
cient securities. which bond shall be
conditioned aud for the purpose as
therein directed. The second section
provides. il shall bc unlawful for any
person 10 sell intoxicating liquors 10
unless upon the written author
i;y ~ iheir parents or guardians or fam
iiy physician. or 10 persons lnioXlcalei.
or ho are in the habit OF getting IN
tovicated. Ia the third section il u pro-
vidcd. all places wherein intoxicating IL
1uors arr sold ia violation of the act
-hll be taken. held. and declared 10 be
common nuisance. aud AL such places
shall be sui up and abaied. on the con-
viction OF keeper thereof The sixth
section declares what penalties shall he
on the persons violating iha
provisions Of the iir,t AMI second Soc
iihn. of thi. aci. The admitted flcis
show "A clear violation of the iir~t sec
ion OF The statute. but not OF the second.
Ii Is insisted a conviction can not be
unless the evidence shows q
Of the first and second sections.
The objection seem hypcrcritical. III j.
founded on the peculiar phraseologv OF
The sixth section imposing the penalties.
and Siich provides that every person
guilty OF violating the provisions "of
the first and second sections" shall for
felt aud pay certain penalties. The PEN
iliies imposed hy that section are for
he violation of either section. and il j.
not indispensable party should be
guilty Of both before be can be subject
,d to the lorft iiurcs enumerated.