{
  "id": 2648994,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. A. C. Willi et al., Plaintiffs in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Willi",
  "decision_date": "1909-03-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "207",
  "last_page": "211",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "147 Ill. App. 207"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "105 Mich. 622",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mich.",
      "case_ids": [
        1512145
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mich/105/0622-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "98 N. C. 768",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11276325
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/98/0768-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "103 Ga. 496",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ga.",
      "case_ids": [
        589777
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ga/103/0496-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "101 N. C. 684",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651482
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/101/0684-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 489,
    "char_count": 8819,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.504,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5541826599732052e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6756949922563052
    },
    "sha256": "4031c151000108cc1213c17c04510b4e1113636bd9976e24e15801a01be81cfc",
    "simhash": "1:de775c20c56bdefe",
    "word_count": 1526
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:09:17.407031+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. A. C. Willi et al., Plaintiffs in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Creighton\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis was a prosecution by information, filed by the state\u2019s attorney of Perry county, in the County Court of that county charging plaintiffs in error with selling-intoxicating liquor within the limits of the precinct of DuQuoin while the same was anti-saloon territory. Trial by jury. Verdict finding plaintiffs in error guilty. The court rendered judgment on the verdict and imposed a fine of $20 and costs upon each of them.\nAt the close of the People\u2019s evidence in chief and again at the close of all the evidence, plaintiffs in error moved the court to instruct the jury to find the defendants not guilty, and the court denied the motion. Plaintiffs in error duly excepted and assign this ruling of the court as error; and say: \u201cThe most that can be said of this evidence is that the defendants bottled the drinks spoken of, viz: \u2018Temperance Brew\u2019 and \u2018Weno,\u2019 and had some of these bottles delivered to various places in the city of DuQuoin. \u2019 \u2019\nThe evidence proves that plaintiffs in error were doing business in the city of DuQuoin; that they received shipments from the Evansville Brewing Company, and the Rudolph Stecker Brewing Company; that such shipments came in barrels or kegs, in large lots; that there were internal revenue stamps on these kegs and barrels; that the names given to the contents of these packages were, \u201cTemperance Brew,\u201d and \u201cWeno\u201d; that plaintiffs in error bottled these liquors and delivered them to a number of retail dealers, in the city of DuQuoin; that one of these liquors contained 3 and 91-100 per cent, of alcohol, and the other 4 and 71-100; that these liquors looked like beer, tasted like beer and had the same effect\u2014one bottle stimulated the drinker of it and a little while after he had drunk it, it made him drowsy, and a competent chemist who analyzed it testified: \u201cI should class it as fermented beer.\u201d The evidence proves beyond all reasonable doubt that plaintiffs in error were dealing in these liquors, selling and delivering them to customers in the city of DuQuoin, and that the liquors were intoxicating liquors within the meaning of the statute. No intelligent fair minded jury could have found otherwise.\nCounsel complains of the ruling of the trial court with respect to the admission and rejection of evidence. While this complaint is made as to a number of rulings, we think only two of them are of material importance.\nDuring the trial the People introduced in evidence, for the purpose of proving that the city of DuQuoin was in anti-saloon territory, the following certificate of the County Clerk of Perry county:\n\u201cState of Illinois, Perry county, ss; I, J. Gr. Taffee, Clerk of the .County Court of said county and state, do hereby certify that at an election held in said Perry county, on Tuesday the 5th day of November, A. D. 1907, the question \u2018 shall this territory become anti-saloon territory?\u2019 was voted upon in the. precinct of DuQuoin, and that the returns of said election were duly canvassed as the law directs, and said returns so canvassed show that upon said election there was voted 932 votes \u2018Yes\u2019 and 899 votes \u2018No.\u2019\n\u201cWitness my hand and the seal of said court, this 12th day of February, A. D. 1908.\nJ. Gr. Taeeee, Clerk.\u201d\n\u201cCounty Seal.\u201d\nTo the introduction of this certificate plaintiffs in error objected, \u201cfor the reason that it is not the best evidence; that it is not in the form required, and because the book containing the record was present in court and could have been introduced.\u201d It was not pointed out in the trial court and is not pointed out here, wherein the certificate is not \u201cin the form required.\u201d The statute makes the official certificate of the clerk primary evidence. Section 7 of the Act is as follows: \u201cThe clerk shall record in a well-bound book, to be kept in his office by himself and his successors, the result of the vote upon said proposition, and such result may be proved in all courts and in all proceedings by such record or by the official certificate of the clerk, and in cases where such a record or certificate shows that a majority of the legal voters voting upon said proposition voted \u201cYes\u201d the same shall be prima facie evidence that the political subdivision to which such vote was applicable has become anti-saloon territory.\u201d We think the court did not err in admitting the certificate in evidence.\nPlaintiffs in error \u201coffered to prove by the county clerk that the petition which was filed with him asking for an election in. DuQuoin did not contain as many as one-fourth of the names of the legal voters who had voted at the last election in that precinct,\u201d and also offered certain sheets of the petition upon which appear the names of a number of signers who did not put opposite their names the street and house number at which they resided, and the court refused to admit this offered evidence or any part of it.\nThe clerk\u2019s record or certificate of the result of the vote can only be questioned by a contest as provided in Section 19 of the Act. It cannot be collaterally attacked or brought into question in a collateral proceeding. In the case at bar and like cases it is conclusive. We think this position well established by the great weight of authority. \u25a0 The Ohio anti-saloon territory statute preceded ours by a number of years, and ours in purpose and language closely follows theirs, especially in the feature here under consideration. The Ohio courts have had this question under consideration, and in the case of Fike v. State of Ohio, 25 C. C. Rep. 554, among other things says: \u201cIt is further urged by counsel for the state that this question cannot be raised in this proceeding; that upon a plea of not guilty under a prosecution for a violation of the law, the defendant cannot be heard upon the question of the validity of the election for the reason that the statute itself provides a method for contesting the validity of the election. * * *\n\u201cThe universal rule is that an election contest cannot be injected into a criminal prosecution by attacking the validity of such an election as this and we think that has been settled by the Supreme Court of this state. * * *\n\u201cThe election having been held, the result having been declared, and the people having expressed their choice, the law has become fixed and whoever comes into the municipality thereafter is bound by it.\n\u201cThe ascertainment and declaration of the result of the election was prima facie correct, and it was conclusive, until, in a proper action brought for the purpose, the true result otherwise should be ascertained by a judicial determination. * * * The law intends that one contest properly instituted for the purpose, shall establish the validity or invalidity of the election questioned.\n\u201cWe hold that a defendant being prosecuted under this statute, cannot defend upon the ground that is urged in this case; that can only be taken advantage of by a contest of the election according to the provisions of the statute.\u201d\nAs supporting the same view, counsel for defendant in error cite State v. Cooper, 101 N. C. 684; Woodard v. The State, 103 Ga. 496; Commonwealth v. Lilland, 10 Ky. Law 561; State v. Emery, 98 N. C. 768; and People v. Whitney, 105 Mich. 622.\nA number of the instructions given on behalf of defendant in error are criticised, and some of the criticisms are well warranted. But there are no errors in any or all of the- instruction that did or could have misled the jury. It is apparent to the court that the jury were not misled. Their verdict is the only verdict that could reasonably have been expected of an in.telligent, honest jury, and is fully supported by the evidence and the law. In such case errors in instructions will not reverse.\nThe judgment of the County Court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Creighton"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "B. W. Pope, for plaintiffs in error.",
      "A. B. Dry, H. E. Kimmel and H. L. Sheldon, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. A. C. Willi et al., Plaintiffs in Error.\n1. Evidence\u2014what competent to prove that certain territory was anti-saloon. Held, that the certificate of the county clerk showing the result of the submission of the question as to whether the particular territory should become anti-saloon was competent to prove the fact that such territory was anti-saloon.\n2. Evidence\u2014how clerk\u2019s certificate of result of election questioned. It is only in a direct contest that the correctness of an election result can be questioned and the certificate of the county clerk showing the result of such election cannot be impeached in a collateral proceeding.\nProsecution for unlawful sale of liquor. Error to the County Court of Perry county; the Hon. Thomas X Myers. Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the August term, 1908.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 4, 1909.\nB. W. Pope, for plaintiffs in error.\nA. B. Dry, H. E. Kimmel and H. L. Sheldon, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0207-01",
  "first_page_order": 225,
  "last_page_order": 229
}
