People v. Dill
| Decision Date | 31 December 1836 |
| Citation | 1836 WL 2335,1 Scam. 257,2 Ill. 257 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, plaintiffs in error,v.MILTON DILL, defendant in error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
A writ of error does not lie in behalf of the people, to reverse the decision of a Circuit Court in a criminal case.
CITED: 12 Bradw. 349. See post 557.
THE defendant was indicted in the Edgar Circuit Court at the April term, 1835, for selling liquor without a license. The cause was tried at the October term in the same year, before the Hon. Alexander F. Grant and the defendant acquitted. On the trial the State's attorney excepted to the decision of the Court in relation to the admission of evidence, and embodied the same in a bill of exceptions, and subsequently sued out a writ of error to reverse the decision of the Court below.
The defendant appeared and moved the Court to dismiss the cause for want of jurisdiction. The Court unanimously sustained the motion on the ground that a writ of error will not lie in behalf of the People in a criminal case.
O. B. FICKLIN, State's Attorney, and W. B. SCATES, Attorney General, for the plaintiffs in error.
J. PEARSON, for the defendant in error.
Writ of error dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Petropoulos
...to Appeal. Historically, in Illinois criminal cases the State had no right to appeal or writ of error either at common law (People v. Dill, 2 Ill. 257 (1836); People v. Royal, 2 Ill. 557 (1839) on double jeopardy grounds), or under the statute of 1845 (People v. Barber, 348 Ill. 40, 41, 180......
-
United States v. Sanges
...by jury, and in the other to reverse a judgment reversing for want of jurisdiction a conviction before a justice of the peace. People v. Dill, (1836,) 1 Scam. 257; People v. Royal, (1839,) Id. In 1848 a writ of error by the state to reverse a judgment for the defendant on a demurrer to the ......
-
People v. Barber
...While the question here involved has not been directly raised or passed upon in any former decision of this court, it was held in People v. Dill, 1 Scam. 257 (decided in 1836) and likewise in People v. Royal, 1 Scam. 557 (decided in 1839), that the state cannot prosecute a writ of error in ......
-
Town of Greenfield v. Mook
...13 Ill. 637; President v. McKernan, 54 Wis. 487; Benuan v. The People, 101 Ill. 323; The People v. Peggy Royal, 1 Scam. 557; The People v. Dill, 1 Scam. 257; The People v. Neill, 74 Ill. 68; Zanone v. Mound City, 103 Ill. 555; Harris v. Supervisors, 15 Chicago Legal News, 93. A town can not......