{
  "id": 5418938,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Adolph Schlick and Bernhart Kile, Plaintiffs in Error; The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. George Schenk, Plaintiff in Error; The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Charles Seibert and John Seibert, Plaintiffs in Error; The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Anthony Shearer and Harry Meisenhelter, Plaintiffs in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Schlick",
  "decision_date": "1915-10-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "605",
  "last_page": "606",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "200 Ill. App. 605"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "269 Ill. 181",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        4799769
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/269/0181-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 186,
    "char_count": 2860,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.549,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.1592542654031181
    },
    "sha256": "7426a4716939eb5246a4fcfb29a75ddb8e0feeaca4db4dbc90746d20f824b4fd",
    "simhash": "1:9663ca28923fbe9d",
    "word_count": 477
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:50:22.374886+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. Adolph Schlick and Bernhart Kile, Plaintiffs in Error. The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. George Schenk, Plaintiff in Error. The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Charles Seibert and John Seibert, Plaintiffs in Error. The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Anthony Shearer and Harry Meisenhelter, Plaintiffs in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Eldredge\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Eldredge"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles C. Le Forges and Vail & Miller, for plaintiffs in error.",
      "Jesse L. Deck and Charles F. Evans, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Adolph Schlick and Bernhart Kile, Plaintiffs in Error. The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. George Schenk, Plaintiff in Error. The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Charles Seibert and John Seibert, Plaintiffs in Error. The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Anthony Shearer and Harry Meisenhelter, Plaintiffs in Error.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nWrits of error to the Circuit Court of Macon county; the Hon. William K. Whitfield, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 13, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\nProsecutions by the People of the State of Illinois, plaintiff, against Adolph Schlick \u00e1nd Bernhart Kile, defendants; against George Schenk, defendant; against Charles Seibert and John Seibert, defendants; against Anthony Shearer and Harry Meisenhelter, defendants, for violation of the Local Option Law (J. & A. 4637 et seq.). Prom judgments of conviction, the defendants bring writs of' error.\nBy agreement of the parties all the writs of error were consolidated in this court. Trial by jury was waived in all the cases and they were tried by the court on agreed stipulations of fact. The stipulations of fact in these cases were identically the same as those which appear in the case of City of Decatur v. Schlick, 269 Ill. 181, with the exception that in the latter case the judgments appealed from were obtained by prosecutions brought .under a city ordinance of the City of Decatur, while the judgments from which the writs of error were prosecuted from this court were obtained by prosecutions under the statute. The above case is referred to for these stipulations.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Intoxicating liquors, \u00a7 80 \u2014when defendants guilty of violating Local Option Law by shifts and devices. On prosecutions for selling intoxicating liquor in violation of the Local Option Law (J. & A. If 4637 se seq.), all the writs of error being consolidated, held, following Oity of Decatur v. Schlick, 269 Ill. 181, that the defendants were guilty of violating such act by means of shifts and devices.\n2. Courts, \u00a7 150*\u2014when opinion of Supreme Oou-rt on same facts binding. The decision of the Supreme Court upon the same facts involved in a criminal prosecution is res judicata and binding on the Appellate Court.\nThe only question involved in these writs of error was whether the several defendants in error were guilty of violating said act by means of shifts and devices.\nCharles C. Le Forges and Vail & Miller, for plaintiffs in error.\nJesse L. Deck and Charles F. Evans, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vol\u00bb. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0605-01",
  "first_page_order": 627,
  "last_page_order": 628
}