Whalin v. the City of Macomb.

• Decision Date: 31 January 1875
• Citation: 76 Ill. 49,1875 WL 8147
• Parties: FERGUS WHALINv.THE CITY OF MACOMB.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

76 Ill. 49

1875 WL 8147 (Ill.)

FERGUS WHALIN

v.THE CITY OF MACOMB.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

January Term, 1875.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of McDonough county; the Hon. CHAUNCEY L. HIGBEE, Judge, presiding.

This was a prosecution, by the city of Macomb against Fergus Whalin, a licensed saloon keeper, for selling liquor contrary to the ordinance of the city regulating such sales by licensed persons. The suit was originally brought before a justice of the peace, and taken to the circuit court by appeal. Section seven of the ordinance under which the suit was brought, is as follows:

“Any person or persons who have obtained a license to keep a grocery under the provisions of this ordinance, as aforesaid, and shall fail or neglect to keep a quiet, orderly and well governed house, or shall knowingly suffer or permit gaming in or about his grocery, or shall fail, neglect or refuse to keep his grocery closed at all hours on Sunday, or who shall open his grocery or cause the same to be done before 4 1/2 o'clock A. M., or who shall keep his grocery open, or cause, suffer or permit it to be kept open, after forty-five minutes past 9 o'clock P. M., railroad time, or who shall sell or give away any of the liquors mentioned in section one hereof to minors, without the written consent of such minor's parent, guardian or master, or who shall sell or give away any of said liquors named in section one to an intoxicated person, or one who is in the habit of getting intoxicated, or who shall violate any of the provisions of the ordinances of this city relative to groceries or spirituous and intoxicating liquors, or who shall fail, neglect or refuse to observe and obey all orders of the city council respecting his grocery and business done therein, shall be deemed to have violated this ordinance and the condition of his or their bond, and for each and every of the acts of violation, aforesaid, shall forfeit and pay to said city the sum of $100, which may be recovered in an action of debt, or as damages in a suit on his or their bond.”

The cause was tried in the circuit court, and the defendant found guilty of two violations, and the damages assessed at $200, for which sum judgment was rendered, and for costs. The defendant appealed.

Messrs. COLE & SIMMONS, for the appellant.

Mr. E. P. PILLSBURY, for the appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE SCHOLFIELD delivered the opinion of the Court:

There are but two grounds of reversal insisted on in the argument filed on...