The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1884-02-09
Appellate Court.

cisions were filed In the appellate court of
cases taken at the December term, Two only
are La Sale county cases, although IA third
interests the firm of King " Hamilton, of this
city.
! ll04. Haskms V. The People This is one
of the noted Strcator liquor suits Haskins,
alias Askins, was indicted on the 18th of June
last for a violation of the liquor laws and the
case was certified to the county court for pro-
cess and trial, and it was called for trial on
the 3lst of July following. In considering
this cast the appellate court says in substance
that the only ground urged for n reversal of
this Judgment |. that the court below refused
to receive the athdayits of the supporting wit
ne>scs, Devine and Kelly, as conclusive evil
dencc that they we're reputable citizens, but
allowed witnesses to be called to contradict
the statements Of the atlidayits in some of
these particulars. We do not lind it neces-
sars in this case TO determine whether in so
doing the court committed error AS it clearly
appears upon other grounds that the court
properly oyerruhd the motion. There was
no reason shown to the court why the appli-
|
an earlier day For aught that appears upon
the hearing of the motion, the defendant
knew of the alleged prejudice of Judge Gil
bert on the day he was arrested, some six
weeks before making the application The
rule is that such applications must be made at
the earliest opportunity.
1t appears from the bill of exceptions that
at'thc time the court ovcrrulcd the motion
there was no proof that any notice had been
given the states attorney of the intended APP
pcation, and that nothing was said about
notice by either party. The statute positive
| " requires that reasonable notice shall be
| given, and such notice cannot he dispensed
with unless formally waived by the party en-
titled to it.
II would seem from this case that it would
not be sufficient to dispense with proof of no
tice, that the states attorney said nothing
about receiving it. This being the state of
the record the court properly overruled the
motion.
1t is true that at the time the bill of eXcep-
tions was settled and signed by Judge Gilbert
the plaintiff in error then presented an atlida-
Wit showing that he first learned of the preju.
dice of the Judge on the day before he made
| the application, and also the atiidavits of his
attorneys that they had given verbal notice to
the states attorney on the morning before
the motion was made, which last ailidavits
were denied by that of the states attorney.
These ailidavits made long after the trial and
Judgment cannot be held as aiding or sup
porting the application for change OF venue
which had been properly oycrruled before
such trial, and we cannot consider them a. in
any manner tending to show error in the
action Of the court complained of. The judy
mcnt of the county court will be affirmed.
The case will undoubtedly 90 to the SUI
prcme court, and decision upon the legal
point whether or not Judge Gilbert was in
error when he refused to receive the ailidavits
Of Devinc and Kelly may be expected.
1872. c., B, Il q. X. r. Co. V. Dougherty,
The court recognized the fact that the case
| had been before it on a former occasion and
that the facts are substantially the same now
As then. The judgment was then reversed on
account of certain errors of the court in Civ
comparative negligence, sc, But on this oc-
casion the appellee offered and the court gave
but one instruction, which in the opinion of
the court was in full accordance with the
statute. Some other minor points are re-
ferred to, but the appellate court could find
no error and therefore affirmed the judgment
of the circuit court
ISL. National Bank of Pontiac v. King ct
al. This was a case in which King x lIamil-
ton had sold piece of property in Livingston
under a mortgage held by them, which at one
time was the property of "A man named Isaac
Deffcnbaugh The bank at Pontiac had Il
Judgment against Dctfenbaugh and seized
this property on an execution. The question
was which of the two, mortgage or judg-
ment, was the prior lien, Decided that the
| former was,
About fifty cases remain still undecided.