Koop v. People of State
| Decision Date | 30 June 1868 |
| Citation | 47 Ill. 327,1868 WL 4986 |
| Parties | JOHN KOOPv.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Clinton county; the Hon. SILAS L. BRYAN, Judge, presiding.
The facts in this case fully appear in the opinion.
Mr. H. K. S. O'MELVENY and Mr. G. VAN HOOREBECK, for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. ROBERT G. INGERSOLL, Attorney General, for the people.
The proof was, that defendant kept a boarding house, and in the front room of his house he had a grocery or saloon, in which he sold beer, and he was seen to sell one glass on one Sunday in the month of June, but the witness could not say on which Sunday--nor could the witness swear that he ever saw the saloon open on Sunday other than the one time.
This question was put to the witness by the prosecution: State whether you saw the defendant's house open, and he selling beer or other drinks in it, on any Sabbath day, within eighteen months before the last August term of this court?
To this the defendant objected, on the ground, that certain Sundays were specified in the indictment, and to those days the proof should be confined; that beer is not spirituous liquor, and its sale on Sunday is not an offense under the statute.
The court permitted the question to be put, and the witness answered that he could remember but one time on Sunday within eighteen months past; it was a glass of beer, and was on some Sunday, but whether on any of the Sundays specified in the indictment, he could not state.
The court instructed the jury, that it was not necessary for the prosecution to prove any particular Sabbath day, but only that the offense was committed within eighteen months prior to finding the indictment.
The court further instructed the jury, that the law against keeping open tippling houses is violated as well by selling beer, as of any other liquors, in his house; and if the jury, from the evidence, believe the defendant kept his grocery open within eighteen months of the finding of the indictment, and sold beer or other liquors, their verdict should be guilty.
The defendant was convicted; a motion for a new trial was overruled; a fine imposed of fifty dollars, and a judgment entered therefor. The plaintiff in error assigns as error these several rulings and instructions.
Plaintiff's counsel seem to be under the impression that it is essential to constitute the offense charged, that spirituous liquors should actually be sold in the saloon on the Sunday specified. This, we think, is an erroneous view of the statute. There is not one word in the branch of the statute on which this indictment is founded, making that a requisite. Section 127 of the statute makes criminal, open lewdness, or other notorious...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Gray
...§ 120; 1 Bishop's New Crim. Proc. § 400; 1 Chitty on Crim. Law (4th Am. Ed.) 223; Kettles v. People, 221 Ill. 221, 77 N. E. 472;Koop v. People, 47 Ill. 327. [3] Nothing appears on the face of the indictment to indicate that the different counts were not introduced solely for the purposeof m......
-
United States v. Hrasky
... ... in the United States at least five years preceding his application, and one year in the state, and that during that time he has behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the ... free from doubt, overruled the government's objection, for the reason that it conceded that people in the same business [88 N.E. 1033](saloon keeping) in this city and Chicago, and other cities in ... People v. Busse, 238 Ill. 593, 87 N. E. 840;Koop v. People, 47 Ill. 327;Kroer v. People, 78 Ill. 294. Has a person who has knowingly and habitually ... ...
-
Kettles v. People
...in bar of any other information or indictment for the same offense alleged to have been committed on any day within that time. Koop v. People, 47 Ill. 327. The objections of the plaintiff in error to the eight instructions given for the people are disposed of by what has already been said. ......
-
Weidman v. People of State
... ... [7 Ill.App. 38] APPEAL from the County Court of White county; the Hon. ORLANDO BURRELL, Judge, presiding. Opinion filed August 13, 1880.Messrs. JOHNSON & GRAHAM, for appellant; that the offense [7 Ill.App. 39] consists in keeping the house open for tippling purposes, cited Koop v. The People, 47 Ill. 327; Patten v. City of Centralia, 47 Ill. 370; Kroer v. The People, 78 Ill. 294.Where there is doubt in regard to an important question the instructions should be plain, free from all doubt and explicit: Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Hammer, 72 Ill. 347; Volk v. Roche, 70 Ill. 297; ... ...