Zarresseller v. the People
| Decision Date | 30 November 1855 |
| Citation | 7 Peck 101,17 Ill. 101,1855 WL 5510 |
| Parties | ANTON ZARRESSELLER, Plaintiff in Error,v.THE PEOPLE, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
17 Ill. 101
1855 WL 5510 (Ill.)
7 Peck (IL) 101
ANTON ZARRESSELLER, Plaintiff in Error,
v.
THE PEOPLE, Defendant in Error.
Supreme Court of Illinois.
November Term, 1855.
THIS indictment was tried before PARRISH, Judge, (a jury being expressly waived,) at the September term, 1855, of the Marion Circuit Court. The defendant was found guilty. Motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were overruled.
Judgment was rendered for a fine and for costs. The opinion of the court furnishes a statement of the case.
G. KOERNER, for Plaintiff in Error.
J. S. ROBINSON, State's Attorney, for the People.
SKINNER, J.
Anton Zarresseller was indicted in the Marion Circuit Court for selling spirituous liquor without license.
The indictment charges that Zarresseller, on the fourth day of April, 1855, at the county of Marion, one gill of spirituous liquor, the same being a less quantity than one quart, to one Tracy, unlawfully did sell.
The defendant appeared and moved the court to quash the indictment, on the ground that the act entitled “an act for the suppression of intemperance, and to amend chapter 30 of the Revised Statutes,” approved February 12, 1855, had repealed
[17 Ill. 102]
the laws authorizing the granting of licenses to retail spirituous liquors, and the penalties for selling without such license. And also, for the reason that the indictment did not describe the kind of liquor sold, and did not conclude in the language of the constitution.The first question is, did the act of 1855 repeal the laws regulating the retail of spirituous liquors, or any part of them? According to the principles laid down in the case of Sullivan v. The People, 15 Ill. 233, the laws authorizing the granting of licenses to sell spirituous liquors, and the laws providing penalties for selling without license compose one system, are dependent upon each other, and the repeal of the one would operate as a repeal of the other. If, then, the act of 1855 repealed the statutes authorizing the granting of licenses, it also repealed the penalties provided for selling without license. But we do not regard the act of 1855, as operative to affect these laws in any manner whatever.
The thirty-sixth section of the act of 1855, provides, that “all laws and parts of laws inconsistent with this act, shall be repealed when this act goes into operation; provided, that all prosecutions which shall have been commenced at the time this act goes into operation, shall be carried on to final judgment and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. Daley v. Joyce
... ... Brewster (1899), 183 Ill. 143, 55 N.E. 640, citing People v. Harris (1889), 128 Ill. 585, 21 N.E. 563), but it had long been held that a jury waiver was permissible in cases of misdemeanors (Zarresseller v. People (1855), 17 Ill. 101). These cases were construing our State constitutions in light of the common law. The United States Supreme Court, in Patton v. United States (1929), 281 U.S. 276, 50 S.Ct. 253, 74 L.Ed. 854, addressed jury waiver and the jurisdictional question in light of the ... ...
-
The State v. Campbell
... ... of the law which was charged in the body of the indictments ... So, in ... the case of Zarresseller v. People, 17 Ill. 101. In ... that case the indictment concluded "against the peace ... and dignity of the People of the State of Illinois." The ... ...
-
State v. Campbell
... ... So in the case of Zarresseller v. People, 17 Ill. 101. In that case the indictment concluded "against the peace and dignity of the people of the state of Illinois." The ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Hall
... ... Juries in all criminal cases shall be judges of the law and of the fact." Thus, in Harris v. People, 128 Ill. 585, 21 N. E. Repr. 563, it was held that a judge sitting without a jury had no jurisdiction to try, convict and sentence an accused upon ... at least those which might be legally prosecuted without an indictment, the Illinois courts have held that a defendant may waive a jury (Zarresseller v. People, 17 Ill. 101; Brewster v. People, 183 Ill. 143, 55 N. E. Repr. 640); provided, however, as stated most clearly in the last-cited case, ... ...