Noecker v. People of State

• Decision Date: 31 January 1879
• Citation: 1879 WL 8432,91 Ill. 494
• Parties: WILLIAM NOECKERv.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

91 Ill. 494

1879 WL 8432 (Ill.)

WILLIAM NOECKER

v.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

January Term, 1879.

WRIT OF ERROR to the County Court of Piatt county; the Hon. WILLIAM MCREYNOLDS, Judge, presiding.

On the trial of this cause the evidence showed that the defendant was a practicing physician and a druggist. The sales of liquor made by the defendant and his clerk were all upon the written prescriptions of some other practicing physicians, or upon representations by the purchasers to the defendant of sickness.

The jury found the defendant guilty on the second and fifth counts, upon which the court assessed a fine of twenty dollars, and, overruling motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment, rendered judgment for the fine and costs. Messrs. REED & BARRINGER, for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. ALBERT EMERSON, State's Attorney, for the People.

Mr. JUSTICE SHELDON delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an indictment for selling intoxicating liquor in a less quantity than one gallon without a license, found at the September term, 1878, of the circuit court of Piatt county, upon which, on a change of venue to the county court of said county, the defendant was tried, convicted and fined at the November term, 1878, of the court last named.

It is insisted that the county court erred in sustaining a demurrer to a plea to the jurisdiction of that court, on the ground that there was no indictment transmitted to that court, as required by law. The certificate of the clerk of the circuit court following a transcript of the proceedings in the circuit court of the impannelling of the grand jury, the finding of an indictment, purporting as above, against the defendant, and of the notice, petition, affidavits, and order for the change of venue to the county court, is, “that the within and foregoing is a true transcript of the record and proceedings, including the notice, petition, affidavits, and order for change of venue in the case of, etc., as the same appears of record in my office.” Then, (in the transcript sent to this court,) following the certificate, is an indictment of the above purport, and a statement of the proceedings in the county court. It is said there was no evidence before the county court that the indictment preferred against the defendant was transmitted to that court as required. It is true the certificate of the circuit clerk does not show that. Counsel for plaintiff in error admit, in argument, that there was an indictment sent to the county court, but insist there is no evidence that the indictment was the one...