Case Name: The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Frank Barney, Plaintiff in Error
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1917-04-19
Citations: 205 Ill. App. 118
Docket Number: Gen. No. 6,323
Parties: The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Frank Barney, Plaintiff in Error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 205
Pages: 118–119

Head Matter:
The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Frank Barney, Plaintiff in Error.
Gen. No. 6,323.
(Not to he reported in full.)'
Error to the County Court of Boone county; the Hon. William C. De Wolf, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.
Reversed and remanded.
Opinion filed April 19, 1917.
Statement of the Case.
Prosecution by the People of the State of Illinois, plaintiff, against Frank Barney, defendant, for illegally selling intoxicating liquor in anti-saloon territory. From a judgment sentencing defendant to pay a fine of one hundred dollars and for confinement in the county jail for eighty days and ordering the place in which the liquor was sold to be abated as a nuisance, defendant brings error.
William L. Pierce, for plaintiff in error.
Patrick H. O’Donnell, for defendant in error.
See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols» XI to XV» and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number»

Opinion:
Mr. Presiding Justice Niehaus
delivered the opinion of the court.
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Intoxicating liquors, § 151*—when evidence insufficient to sustain conviction for illegally selling intoxicating liquor in anti-saloon territory. In a prosecution for illegally selling intoxicating liquor1 in anti-saloon territory and maintaining a nuisance, where a conviction was had upon two of eleven counts, and it appeared that of the four witnesses upon whose testimony the People relied for a conviction one did not sufficiently connect the plaintiff with the sale testified to, another was impeached and the remaining two must have been mistaken in their testimony, held that the verdict was not based upon sufficiently reliable evidence to sustain a conviction in a criminal case.
2. Chiminal law, § 207 —when abridgment of right of cross-examination prejudicial error. It is prejudicial error to unduly abridge the right of cross-examination to which a defendant in a criminal case is entitled.