, 1874-02-10
THE LIQUOR LAW.
Decision of the Supreme Court in
tho LAWN Case.
Questions Which May Properly De Put to
Jurors.

Wegive herewith the decision Of tho Supreme
Court in the case OF Michael LAWN '. The
People, which was carried up from this county.
Tho opinion, which is written by nrr. Justice
Craig, is as follows;
At tho October term Of the Criminal Court Of
Cook County an indictment WAS found by tho
Grand Jury against Michael LAWN for selling
Intoxicating liquors to peraon who waB IN the
habit Of getting Intoxicated.
at the January term 1873, Of tho Court, trinl
Was had before jury, and the defendant found
guilty.
In selecting a jury Ito try the cause iu tho
Criminal Court, the defendant propoundc' to
each juror called tho following questions:
!. Ara you member Of d temperance society?
3. Arc you connected with my society or
league organized for tho purpose OF prosecuting
certain class Of people under what Ia called the
New Temperance law OF tho State or haye you
ever contributed any funds for such q purpose
The People, by tho stato'a Attornoy objected
to the jurors answering tho questions, and tho
Court sustained tho objection. and would not
permit tho Jurors to ansWer, and to this ruling
OF the Court the defendant obiccted.
It is the policy Of our lawB to afford each and
ovefy person. who may have cause for triat in
our courts q far and impartial trial. T1is caI,
only be done by having the mind of each Juror
who sits to pass Judgment upon the lifo, liberty
or rights Of = suitor entirc1Y free from bias OF
prejudice. In order to determine whether tho
PERSON who may be called as g juror possesses
tue necessary qualifications, whether Lis mind iB
free from prejudice or bias, the suitor has tho
right to asls him questions. tho anawcr to which
may tend to show. He ma5 ha challenged for
cause to disclose state of facts from which tlo
Buitor n1ay sec proper to reject such juror per-
enptorily.
In caaa OF the Commonwealth V. Egan ct al,
4th Gray, page II, which WAS an indictment for
being common aeliors Of apirituous liquors,
inquired it any members of tho panel belonged
to tho Carson League, and one answered that ho
wasn member Of said League; tint, ~ lie UNDER
stood It, the object Of the Society waa to PROSE-
called that assessments were made upon mems
beis for tho purpose OF carrying out the objects
OF the Society; that they had paid one asseas-
mont, and oxpectod to pay moro that there was
nothing In the existence Of this membership to
prevent his giving far and impartial vorlios
according to the evidence. Tho defendant OBJ
jectod to the j,lrymar, but tho Court over4uled
tho objection mud allowed him to romniu In tho
panol. The appellate. court, in deciding the
case, said:
Judgment, tho members Of my association Of nlen
combining for tic PURPOSE Of enforcing or Withstand
Themselves to contr,bnts n,sch M rnrposs.
cunno be held to 10 Indifferent, and therefore ought
not TO ha permitted to at Jurors il he trial Of she
cauHe n which tho question is whether tho defendant
shall bc found guilty Of violating thai law.
In the case OF the People v. Rogcs OF al, CAL.
3A7, the Supreme Court Of California, in q case
analogous, held substantially as did tho Court
In Massachusetts.
We uro not, however, in this case, called upon
to decide whether Al, affirmative answer to tho
questions proponntled to the jurors would hayo
hoen ground Of chhl!engo for oauHe. The queH~
tions were asked with yiew to call out facts
n t11rn frr n,
for this purpose they wero proper. aud Should
have been answered.
That the refuAal Of tho Court to permit the
questions asked to 30 answered was error, Tor
which tho Judgment should 10 Reversed there
can be no doubt: Drooksy. brown, 96 ILL.,, a05,
Birron " Ryan, 20 H., 5GG.
It cannot ba said the Cause was tried by q Jury
such M Is contemplated by law,
Tho othor questions raised In tho case aro
sottloa by tho eaBe Of Mcontchoou Y. Tho People,
decided at the preseut term. For tho error iu-
dicatcd. tho Judgment will bo reversed and tic
cause romandod.
Iu this Mocatohoon case, referred to in the
for unlawfully selling liquor to minor without
tho oonsont OF hih parenta. Tie caso was tried
in tho County Court md motion made to auaBh
the Indictment, on tho ground it did not aver tho
,, accused know 1.-THE tho person %'4 to whom 10 sold
oyerrulipg the motion IL assigned for error, but
tho Supreme Court sustains tho lower tribunal.
holding 1t IL the duty OF tho seller to soo that
the person to whom ho soils is authorised to buy.
II . man may sometimes Hutler penalties when
he had no intontlon to violate tho law, 1t IL an-
sworod that this IL QUO ot tho risks incident
to tho l'usinesB, aud, receiving tho omoluuouts.
must also take Tho hazards.
Judges Walker and MeAlistor dissent, believing |
that guilty knowledge must DO proven on tie !
trial, even II not avorrel IN tho indictments
-N--
FAST TIME.
SAN FRAFo1aco, Fob. D.-The China Traue-Pa- |