People v. Berglin
| Decision Date | 20 October 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 15442.,15442. |
| Citation | 309 Ill. 488,141 N.E. 295 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. BERGLIN. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, McLean County; Edward Barry, Judge.
Dave Berglin was convicted of a second offense in the possession and sale of intoxicating liquor, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
Russell M. Bolin, of Bloomington, for plaintiff in error.
Edward J. Brundage, Atty. Gen., Lester H. Martin, State's Atty., of Bloomington, George C. Dixon, of Dixon, and Joseph W. Depew, of Bloomington, for the People.
Dave Berglin (hereafter called defendant) was convicted in the circuit court of McLean county for a violation of the Illinois Prohibition Law (Hurd's Rev. St. 1921, c. 43). The first count of the indictment alleged defendant was convicted at the April term, 1922, of the circuit court, for possessing and selling intoxicating liquor, to wit, whisky; that he was sentenced to pay a fine of $100 and stand committed until the fine was paid; that after the conviction, on the 20th day of August, 1922, he unlawfully possessed intoxicating liquor containing more than one-half of 1 per cent of alcohol by volume. The second count of the indictment alleged the former conviction and sentence, and that on the 20th day of August, 1922, he unlawfully sold intoxicating liquor containing more than one-half of 1 per cent. of alcohol by volume. The jury found him guilty under both counts of the indictment, and the court, after overruling motions for a new trial and in arrest, sentenced defendant to the penitentiary for an indeterminate term, as provided by law, and to pay a fine of $500 under each count of the indictment. He has sued out this writ of error.
The errors assigned and argued in the briefs are that section 3 of chapter 43, known as the Illinois Prohibition Act, and section 33 of the same act, are unconstitutional; that the trial court erred in appointing counsel for the defendant and requiring him to go to trial without sufficient time for preparation; that the trial court erred in the admission of evidence and in giving and refusing instructions.
[1] Counsel appointed to represent defendant on the trial made no motion for a continuance or postponement of the trial and cannot now be heard to complain that he was not allowed time to prepare the defense. If he needed time to prepare, he should have made application to the court for postponement to a reasonable time to enable him to make preparation.
[2] The people proved by Martin Gibson that he and Nolan Grubb met defendant on the streets of Bloomington the night of August 20, 1922, and Grubb asked the defendant where he could get some whisky. Defendant took the two men down to his house, presented them to his wife, and then left the room. Grubb bought a pint of whisky from Mrs. Berglin and paid her $2.50. They drank the liquor there in the house. That same night three police officers, with a search warrant, went to the house of defendant and knocked at his door. Defendant came to the door and the officers asked to be admitted. The screen door was fastened with a hook, and defendant did not open it, but walked away.
One of the officers informed him he had a search warrant, but he went into another room and left the officer standing at the door. One of the officers was at another part of the house, and the officer at the door heard someone say they were pouring the stuff out. He immediately pulled the door open, went in, found defendant's wife sitting on the bed, and defendant trying to quiet her. The officers went into the bathroom, where they found two jugs and a funnel. There was the smell of whisky in the bathroom, and the jugs smelt of whisky. The officers dipped a quart and a half of the contents of the toilet stool, and put the same in two bottles, labeled the bottles, and turned them over to a chemist for analysis for alcohol. The chemist testified the contents of one of the bottles contained 9.55 per cent. alcohol by volume and the other one 12.07 per...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Pearl River Val. Water Supply Dist. v. Wood, 43478
-
People v. Amerman
...case to the appellate court. People v. Dwyer cites People v. Bute, 396 Ill. 588, 72 N.E.2d 813, which in turn relies on People v. Berglin, 309 Ill. 488, 141 N.E. 295, also cited in Dwyer, which in turn cites Cummings, Motsinger v. Chenoweth, 308 Ill. 31, 139 N.E. 27, another progeny of Cumm......
-
People v. Bute
... ... This question was not raised in the trial court and it cannot be raised for the first time in a court [72 N.E.2d 815]of review. People v. Berglin, 309 Ill. 488, 141 N.E. 295. Defendant next asserts that he was rushed to trial with such expedition as to deprive him of a fair trial. The indictments were presented on June 17, 1938, and on the third day thereafter defendant was arraigned, pleaded guilty and sentenced. This cause being here on ... ...
-
People v. Villareal
...the trial court for a continuance or postponement for a reasonable period to enable him to make his preparation. (People v. Berglin (1923), 309 Ill. 488, 490, 141 N.E. 295; accord, People v. Reed (1977), 55 Ill.App.3d 397, 402, 13 Ill.Dec. 362, 371 N.E.2d 57.) Thus, in light of the absence ......