Court Opinion

ID: 9744431
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:03:02.118985+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:49.210392
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE SCHAEFER, dissenting: It seems to me that the statute and the application form are clear, and that the judgment of the appellate court, which reinstated the verdict of the jury, was correct. The question whether the defendant was “a public official as defined in Sec. 2(14) Art. VI of the Illinois Liquor Control Act” did not call for a conclusion. It called for a statement of fact as to whether or not the defendant was one of the class of public officials defined in that section. He was, but he swore that he was not. All of the categories of positions mentioned in section 2(14) are public offices, and all the persons holding those positions are public officials. The prohibition applies to all of them: “*** and no such official shall be interested in any way ***.” It is impossible, in my opinion, to read the statute without realizing that a “member of the county board” is one of the public officials it defines. MR. JUSTICE DAVIS joins in this dissent.