Darst v. People of State
| Decision Date | 30 September 1869 |
| Citation | 1869 WL 5327,51 Ill. 286,2 Am.Rep. 301 |
| Parties | JOHN DARST et al.v.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Woodford county; the Hon. S. L. RICHMOND, Judge, presiding.
The opinion states the case.
Mr. A. E. STEVENSON and Mr. J. A. BRIGGS, for the plaintiffs in error.
Mr. WASHINGTON BUSHNELL, Attorney General, for the people.
This was an indictment for a riot. The defendants were convicted, and have prosecuted this writ of error.
The record shows, the town of Eureka, in Woodford county, had adopted an ordinance declaring a nuisance all intoxicating liquors kept within the limits of said town, for the purposes of being sold or given away, as a beverage, to be drank within said town. The ordinance further directed the police officers to abate said nuisance by removing the liquor beyond the town limits. One Moustier kept a grocery in the town, and on the 7th of January, 1869, the plaintiffs in error, two of whom were police officers and the rest trustees of the town, proceeded to Moustier's grocery, over which he and his wife lived, and demanded his liquor. He refused to deliver it, whereupon they went up stairs, and finding the door of the room occupied by his wife to be locked, on her refusing to open it, broke it down with a sledge-hammer, or some similar instrument, and taking several kegs of whiskey and beer, put them in a wagon and carried them beyond the limits of the town, leaving them on the ground. Moustier testifies he never saw his liquor again.
The plaintiffs in error sought to defend under this ordinance, but the circuit court most properly held such a defense unavailing. Even if the power were conceded to the town, of seizing, carrying away, and destroying this man's beer and spirits, if kept for sale to be drunk within the town, as to which we express no opinion, the question not having been argued, yet it certainly can not be denied, that such a power could be exercised only by some judicial instrumentality. Even under this ordinance, the beer and spirits were not a nuisance liable to summary destruction, unless they were kept for sale or gift, to be drunk within the town; and whether they were kept for that purpose was a question which the owner had the right to submit to a court of justice before his property could be taken away. The board of trustees of Eureka had no more power...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Daniels v. Homer
... ... knowledge, that no small part of the sustenance and business ... interest of the people living adjacent to Albemarle and ... Pamlico Sounds and the waters connected therewith are ... the goose that lays the golden egg" for the benefit of a ... whole section of the state, whose people are so largely ... interested in the fish industry, the General Assembly of 1905 ... violation cannot be left to police officers or oyster ... inspectors to determine. Darst v. People, 51 Ill ... 286, 2 Am. Rep. 301. There is no more legislative power to ... authorize ... ...
-
U.S. v. Bridgeman
... ... , thus the most common usage of the word, encompasses events "relating to or affecting the people of an organized community." Congress must be deemed to have intended the most common, generally ... " requirement is consonant with the approach reflected in numerous decisions interpreting state riot statutes. 13 In State v. Winkels, 204 Minn. 466, 283 N.W. 763, 764 (1939), the Minnesota ... 653, 659 (1882), Citing Bishops, Criminal Law § 1148; State v. Powell, 70 N.C. 67 (1874); Darst v. People, 51 Ill. 286, 2 ... Page 1116 ... Am.Rep. 301 (1869); State v. Boies, 34 Me. 235 ... ...
-
Dickinson v. United States
...may waive a jury trial altogether in misdemeanor cases. Schick v. United States, 195 U.S. 65, 24 Sup.Ct. 826, 49 L.Ed. 99; Darst v. People, 51 Ill. 286, 2 Am.Rep. 301; Logan v. State, 86 Ga. 266, 12 S.E. 406; v. Woodling, 53 Minn. 142, 54 N.W. 1068; Ward v. People, 30 Mich. 116; Commonwealt......
-
In re Application of Kortgaard
... ... 555 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF CLARENCE KORTGAARD for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA EX REL. CLARENCE KORTGAARD, Petitioner, v. DELL PATTERSON, Warden of the North ... Rogers, 78 S.E. 293; State ... v. Moses, 47 N.C. (2 Jones, L.), 66; Cancemi v ... People, 18 N.Y. 128; Com. v. Rowe, 257 Mass ... 172; State v. Lockwood, 43 Wis. 403; State v ... Ross, 47 S.D. 188, 197 N.W. 234; State ... v. Tiedman, 49 S.D. 356, 207 N.W. 153; Darst v ... People, 51 Ill. 286; Scheick v. United States, 195 U.S ... Burke, ... ...