People v. Rettich
| Decision Date | 25 October 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 18952.,18952. |
| Citation | 332 Ill. 49,163 N.E. 367 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. RETTICH. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Saline County Court; W. W. Damron, Judge.
W. C. Rettich was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquor without the requisite permit, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
Alpheus Gustin, of Harrisburg, for plaintiff in error.
Oscar E. Carlstrom, Atty. Gen., Charles T. Flota, State's Atty., of Harrisburg, and Roy D. Johnson, of Springfield, for the People.
Plaintiff in error, W. C. Rettich, was tried by a jury, convicted, and sentenced to be committed to the county jail of Saline county for a period of six months on each count of an information consisting of two counts, filed in that court against him by the state's attorney of the county, charging him with violation of the Prohibition Act by the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor without the requisite permit. He brings the record to this court for review upon writ of error, assigning as error that his constitutional rights have been infringed upon by an unlawful search and seizure of his premises and that he was about to be deprived of his liberty without due process of law.
On May 23, 1927, Ray Snoddy made an affidavit before one of the justices of the peace of Saline county for a warrant to search plaintiff in error's premises, in which affidavit the place to be searched was described with particularity and in which it was stated that he had just and reasonable grounds to believe, and did believe, that intoxicating liquor was possessed, kept for sale, sold and disposed of for beverage purposes in violation of the Prohibition Act (Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1927, c. 43, §§ 1-50), without a permit from the Attorney General so to do, and stated as his grounds for such belief that he purchased two quarts of intoxicating liquor called ‘home-brew,’ and paid 50 cents a quart for the same, from Rettich on the premises described in the affidavit, on May 23, 1927. A search warrant was issued thereon to the sheriff of Saline county, who executed the same by searching the premises, and in his return thereon stated that he found as the result of such search 60 bottles of home-brew and 3 gallons of whisky.
Prior to entering upon the trial plaintiff in error made a motion to quash the search warrant and the complaint therefor, and asked that the intoxicating liquor obtained by the search and seizure be impounded and all evidence thereof be suppressed. This motion was overruled by the court. Plaintiff in error assigns the overruling of this motion as error. We do not deem it necessary to discuss this question further than to say that the affidavit and search warrant aptly described the premises and disclosed good ground for its issuance, and one of the deputy sheriffs who made the search testified on the trial, without objection, that he found 60 bottles of home-brew and three gallons of whisky on plaintiff in error's premises.
[1] Plaintiff in error assigns as error that the court erred in denying him a change of venue. The abstract does not set out either the motion or its verification, and we are not required to search the record for errors not made manifest by the abstract.
[2][3][4] After the verdict of the jury plaintiff in error made a motion for a new trial and filed in support thereof the affidavits of two jurors, to the effect that during the deliberations of the jury...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Costales.
...of a new trial.” Other cases supporting the less strict doctrine are State v. Borchert, 68 Kan. 360, 74 P. 1108, 1109; People v. Rettich, 332 Ill. 49, 163 N. E. 367; Walter v. State, 29 Okl. Cr. 221, 233 P. 240; Wireman v. Com., 212 Ky. 420, 279 S. W. 633; Evans v. State, 165 Ark. 424, 264 ......
-
Roumbos v. City of Chicago
... ... state, which apportion its territory into local subdivisions, for the purposes of civil and governmental administration, and impose upon the people residing in said several subdivisions, precise and limited public duties, and clothe them with restricted corporate functions, coextensive with the ... ...
-
People v. McCurrie
...334 Ill. 200, 165 N. E. 611;People v. Moone, 334 Ill. 590, 166 N. E. 481;People v. Storer, 329 Ill. 536, 161 N. E. 76;People v. Rettich, 332 Ill. 49, 163 N. E. 367;People v. Heard, 305 Ill. 319, 137 N. E. 109;People v. Halpin, 276 Ill. 363, 114 N. E. 932;People v. Zalapi, 321 Ill. 484, 152 ......
-
People v. Weger
...Ill.2d 291, 155 N.E.2d 29; People v. Miller, 13 Ill.2d 84, 148 N.E.2d 455; People v. Geisler, 348 Ill. 510, 181 N.E. 328; People v. Rettich 332 Ill. 49, 163 N.E. 367; People v. Quinn, 313 Ill. 351, 145 N.E. 78; Reins v. People, 30 Ill. 256 The final error complained of by defendant is that ......