Ferguson v. People of State
| Decision Date | 30 September 1874 |
| Citation | 1874 WL 9039,73 Ill. 559 |
| Parties | WILLIAM H. FERGUSONv.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Mercer county; the Hon. GEORGE W. PLEASANTS, Judge, presiding.
Mr. I. N. BASSETT, for the appellant.
Messrs. PEPPER & WILSON, for the appellee.
The only question appellant presents on this record is, whether, in a prosecution before a justice of the peace, under the 9th section of the act of the 13th day of January, 1872, entitled “An act to provide against the evils resulting from the sale of intoxicating liquors in this State,” it must be based on a complaint under oath. That section provides that the penalty and imprisonment mentioned in the sixth section may be enforced by indictment in any court of record having criminal jurisdiction; and all pecuniary fines or penalties provided for in any of the sections of the act except the fourth and fifth, may be enforced and prosecuted for before any justice of the peace of the proper county, in an action of debt, in the name of The People of the State of Illinois, as plaintiff, etc.
This was a prosecution, under the second section of the act, for selling intoxicating liquors to drunken persons, or persons in the habit of getting intoxicated.
A trial was had before the justice of the peace, resulting in a conviction and judgment of $200 and costs. The case was removed, by appeal, to the county court, where a motion was made to dismiss for want of a complaint in writing, and under oath. The prosecution filed a written complaint, not under oath, and the motion was overruled; and on a trial a recovery was had, and judgment rendered for $170 and costs. The case was appealed to the circuit court, and the judgment of the county court was affirmed, and defendant appeals to this court.
The statute does not, in terms, require an information or sworn complaint to be filed before the suit can be commenced. It only authorizes the prosecution and recovery to be by action of debt. We are aware of no authority, English or American, nor have we been referred to any, which requires such a complaint where the action of debt is given by the statute. Our statutes have given the action in numerous cases, either to the people qui tam or to the injured party, and yet we have never known a practice requiring such a complaint, to obtain. It has generally been supposed that in such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Town of Whitehall v. Meaux
... ... Block, 36 Ill. 507; Hoyer v. Town of Mascoutah, 59 Ill. 137; Ferguson v. The People, 73 Ill. 559.The statute for consolidation of claims embraces suits of this ... ...