Case Name: City of Monticello, Appellee, v. Ira Clodfelter, Appellant
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1917-04-16
Citations: 205 Ill. App. 11
Docket Number: 
Parties: City of Monticello, Appellee, v. Ira Clodfelter, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 205
Pages: 11–12

Head Matter:
City of Monticello, Appellee, v. Ira Clodfelter, Appellant.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Appeal from the County Court of P'iatt county; the Hon. W. A. Doss, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed April 16, 1917.
Statement of the Case.
Action in debt by the City of Monticello, plaintiff, against Ira Clodfelter, defendant, to recover for violation by defendant of an ordinance of plaintiff as to intoxicating liquors. From a judgment for plaintiff upon two counts, one for selling such liquors and one for keeping a place where such liquors were sold, and assessing a fine of fifty dollars upon each count, defendant appeals.
J. L. Hicks, for appellant.
F. M. Shonkwiler, for appellee.
See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Eldredge
delivered the opinion of the court.
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Intoxicating liquobs, § 62*—when city has power to make ordinance regulating sale of. A city located in territory which has become anti-saloon territory under the Local Option Act has power to make an ordinance prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquor within the city not inconsistent with that act and providing for a violation of its provisions.
2. Intoxicating liquobs, § 62*—when ordinance prohibiting sale of is valid. An ordinance of a city, located within anti-saloon territory, providing that any person selling intoxicating liquors within the city shall be fined not less nor more than certain amounts, and that any place where such liquors are sold or kept for sale shall be deemed a nuisance and the keeper of same fined not less nor more than certain amounts, held not to be inconsistent with the Local Option Act and a valid ordinance.
3. Juey, § 57a —when evidence insufficient to show incompetency of juror. Evidence held insufficient to show that a certain juror was mentally unbalanced to such an extent as to make him incompetent to act as such.