{
  "id": 2538370,
  "name": "City of Vandalia v. J. W. Carracker",
  "name_abbreviation": "City of Vandalia v. Carracker",
  "decision_date": "1904-09-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "62",
  "last_page": "63",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "116 Ill. App. 62"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 254,
    "char_count": 3515,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.546,
    "sha256": "17dfe7474b16a14df6804763f37bb34e3dcd980d18ed69dd1885943bc176bc78",
    "simhash": "1:ac85c4da29c020e0",
    "word_count": 622
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:50:54.720168+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "City of Vandalia v. J. W. Carracker."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Higbee\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAppellant, the city of Vandalia, has an ordinance which provides that \u201c no retailer of liquors or proprietor or keeper of any dram-shop or drinking saloon, shall, within said city, keep open, or permit to be kept open, his place of business, or any part thereof, on Sunday; nor shall, on that day, sell or deliver any intoxicating, malt, vinous, mixed or fermented liquors, or permit any such liquors to be sold, used or drank in his place of business, or in any room or place adjacent thereto, subject to his control; nor shall on that day, allow or permit any person or persons to enter or frequent his' place of business, not belonging thereto or connected therewith, under a penalty, in each case, of not less than twenty-five dollars nor more than one hundred dollars.\u201d Appellee, who was a dram-shop keeper in said city, was arrested upon a warrant issued by a police magistrate upon a complaint charging him with violating said ordinance. There was a trial before the police magistrate and an appeal taken to the Circuit Court of Fayette county, where, upon a hearing with a jury, appellee was found not guilty.\nThe only, question presented to this court on appeal is one of fact. The proof, on the part of appellant, showed that on Sunday, August 9, a circus had come to the city, bringing with it some five or six hundred people; that on said day the mayor of the city saw two men enter a hallway, from which there was a door leading into the rear end of appellee\u2019s saloon; that he followed them and saw them enter the rear door, through which he also went into the saloon; that in the saloon he found some fifteen people, all of whom were strangers to him except two employees of appellee, named Williams and Steinhauer. Appellee, himself, was not present.\nThe evidence showed that on the day in question Williams and Steinhauer were engaged in cleaning up the saloon preparatory to the next day\u2019s business; that when they were about through with their work Williams carried the slops out of the back door and went to a baker shop near by to get some lunch for himself and Steinhauer; that while he was gone a number of men, referred to in the evidence as \u201c show fellows,\u201d came in the back door; that Steinhauer said to them, \u201c Here, boys, this won\u2019t do,\u201d and walked towards the door; that about the same time Williams stepped in the door and ordered the men out; that the mayor followed Williams into the saloon and also ordered the strangers out, and that the latter obeyed the order and left the saloon. There is no proof that there was any sale or attempted sale of liquors to any person in the saloon on the day in question.\nWe are of opinion that the facts in this case, as they appear from the evidence in the record, justified the jury in finding a verdict in favor of appellee, and there being no other question presented for our consideration, the judgment of the court below is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Higbee"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "F. G. Remann and J. F. Blankenship, for appellant.",
      "F. M. Guinn, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "City of Vandalia v. J. W. Carracker.\n1. Sunday closing ordinance\u2014when violation of, does not appear. In the absence of proof of a sale or attempted sale of liquor, no violation of an ordinance requiring Sunday closing is established.\nProsecution under Sunday closing ordinance. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Fayette County; the Hon. William M. Farmer, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the February term, 1904.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed September 9, 1904.\nF. G. Remann and J. F. Blankenship, for appellant.\nF. M. Guinn, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0062-01",
  "first_page_order": 80,
  "last_page_order": 81
}