Meaux v. the Town of Whitehall.

• Decision Date: 30 November 1880
• Citation: 8 Bradw. 173,8 Ill.App. 173
• Parties: JOHN E. MEAUXv.THE TOWN OF WHITEHALL.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

8 Ill.App. 173

8 Bradw. 173

JOHN E. MEAUX

v.THE TOWN OF WHITEHALL.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

November Term, 1880.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the County Court of Greene county; the Hon. L. E. WORCESTER, Judge, presiding. Opinion filed January 18, 1881.

Messrs. MYERSTEIN & HENSHAW, for appellant; that the bias of the jurors, as shown in their examination upon voir dire, was a sufficient ground for a challenge for cause, cited Albrecht v. Walker, 73 Ill. 69; Robinson v. Randall, 82 Ill. 521.

The complainant must prove either that the beverages sold were whisky or beer, or that they were intoxicating: Village of South Evanston v. Mares, 1 Chicago Law Jour. 58.

The evidence must be of such a character as to create a reasonable and well founded belief of the guilt of the defendant. T. P. & W. R. Ry. Co. v. Foster, 43 Ill. 480.

Messrs. RIGGS & HENDERSON, for appellee; cited Robinson v. Randall, 82 Ill. 521; Musick v. The People, 40 Ill. 2 8; Winneshiek Ins. Co. v. Schuller, 60 Ill. 465.

HIGBEE, J.

This was a suit by appellee against appellant to recover a penalty for the violation of its ordinances forbidding the sale of intoxicating liquors.

When the jury was being impaneled three of them, Joseph Steele, John G. Dick and James Thompson, having been accepted by appellee, were examined touching their qualifications as jurors, by appellants, and each stated in substance that he had a prejudice against the sale of liquor in any form; thought its sale a perfect nuisance and a very low business, and had no sympathy with a man engaged in the business.

Would do all he could, short of violence to stop the manufacture or sale of liquor; could not, all else being equal, give the testimony of a person engaged in the sale of intoxicating liquors the same weight that he would to a person engaged in the sale of dry goods, and that if the evidence were equally balanced, he would find a verdict against the defendant. These jurors were each challenged by appellant for cause, but the court held them competent and refused to allow the challenge.

It was expressly held by the Supreme Court in the cases of Chicago & Alton R. R. Co. v. Adler, 56 Ill. 345, and G. & W. R. R. Co. v. Haslem et al. 73 Ill. 494, that a juror who stated upon his voir dire that in case the evidence were equally balanced he would find against the defendant, was not a competent juror, and that it was error to refuse a challenge by the defendant to such a juror.

It was said by the court in C. & A. R. R. Co. v. Adler, supra, “Nor...