Johnson v. People of State

• Decision Date: 30 September 1876
• Parties: CHARLES C. JOHNSONv.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

83 Ill. 431

1876 WL 10366 (Ill.)

CHARLES C. JOHNSON

v.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1876.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Lee county; the Hon. WILLIAM W. HEATON, Judge, presiding.

This was an indictment against Charles C. Johnson for selling intoxicating liquor to minors at a fourth of July celebration. It contained twenty-four counts, charging sales to twelve different named persons.

The defendant pleaded not guilty, and a trial was had resulting in a verdict finding the defendant guilty, except as to the seventeenth and eighteenth counts. The defendant moved for a new trial, which was denied, and judgment rendered on the verdict.

Mr. J. V. EUSTACE, for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. JAMES K. EDSALL, Attorney General, for the People. Mr. JUSTICE WALKER delivered the opinion of the Court:

It is first urged, that the evidence fails to sustain a verdict of guilty under the sixteenth count, and that there was no other count under which plaintiff in error could have been convicted of sales actually made by him. Barton swears that plaintiff in error sold to him two glasses of beer, one for himself and the other for one Bitner. Plaintiff in error denies that there was any such sale; that he sold none to him, nor did he sell to any other person. Barton testified that he was eighteen years old.

There was a flat contradiction between the statements of these witnesses, and it was for the jury to judge of their veracity, and having done so, their action will not be lightly disturbed. The jury had the witnesses before them, and could see their manner of testifying, and they, no doubt, in determining the truth, took into consideration all the attending circumstances of the case. Plaintiff in error was deeply interested in the event of the trial, and the prosecuting witness was not, so far as this record discloses. This, of itself, for aught we can know, may have fully warranted the jury in giving credence to the evidence of the prosecuting witness. For anything we can know, the manner of plaintiff in error, when on the stand, may have been such as to satisfy the jury that he was unworthy of belief.

It is urged that the prosecuting witness was ignorant, and hence we should not give him credit for truth and veracity. He seems not to have known in what county Knox's Grove was situated. This may be true, and still the witness be entirely truthful as to what he does know. Men, with but few, if any, exceptions, are ignorant on some questions, and no one for that reason doubts their veracity. This objection was, no doubt, fully considered by the jury, and they were convinced that he spoke the truth, and we see no reason to say they were mistaken.

It is also urged, plaintiff in error was improperly convicted under the other counts--that he was simply employed to make change for the six or seven persons who were selling beer, lemonade, candy, etc. He and the others were acting in concert. They were carrying out a common purpose. He aided in making these sales if he gave change when the minors purchased the beer. He to that extent aided and assisted in making these sales. He thereby took an active part, and was one of the actors. It may be he was not as active as others, but nevertheless he acted conjointly with the salesmen. He made no protest against such sales, and being present, and participating in what was done, the jury were warranted in finding that he knew beer was being sold to minors, and that he aided and abetted in such sales.

It is next urged, that there is no averment in the indictment that plaintiff in error, or any person with whom he was acting, was the keeper of a dram-shop. The sixth section of the Dram-Shop Act provides, that “whoever, by himself or his agent or servant, shall sell or give intoxicating liquor to any minor, without the written order of his parent, guardian or family physician, * * * for each offense shall be fined,” etc. Now, there is no reference in this section to the keeper of a dram-shop. The language is sufficiently broad to embrace all other persons, as well as the keepers of dram-shops. The manifest object of this section is to prevent the sale or giving of liquors to minors, without the consent of parents, guardians, etc. To hold that it only applied to keepers of dram-shops, would do violence to the design of the General Assembly in adopting this section. It is not necessary to now determine whether a person would incur the penalty of this section by giving it as an act of hospitality at his house, as that question is not before the court. The question here is, whether a person having or not having a license to keep a dram-shop may sell intoxicating drink to minors, and we think it is manifest he can not, without incurring the penalty prescribed by the law.

It is also urged, that the act under which this prosecution was conducted is void, under our fundamental law. It is claimed, that whilst the body of the law was adopted on the call of the “ayes” and “noes,” spread upon the journals of the Senate, by a majority of all the Senators elect, the title to the act only passed by a majority...