{
  "id": 2968073,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Lyman Moore, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Moore",
  "decision_date": "1916-04-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "170",
  "last_page": "171",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "201 Ill. App. 170"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 168,
    "char_count": 2295,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.562,
    "sha256": "300c193d77d2e7b877faeedbff3075142c9f14d717c7c3359fabfdaa74bd7079",
    "simhash": "1:c34fcdb0530fba9d",
    "word_count": 370
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:52:04.845486+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. Lyman Moore, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Eldredge\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Eldredge"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John E. Hogan and E. E. Dowell, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Harry B. Hershey, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Lyman Moore, Plaintiff in Error.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nError to the County Court of Christian county; the Hon. Charles A.\" Prater, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1915.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed April 21, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nProsecution by the People of the State of Illinois, plaintiff, against Lyman Moore, defendant, for the sale of intoxicating liquor in anti-saloon territory. To review a judgment entered against him, defendant prosecutes a writ of error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Witnesses, \u00a7 243 \u2014what constitutes violation of right against self-incrimination. Service of notice and a subpoena duces tecum, calling for the production, by one on trial for selling intoxicating liquor in anti-saloon territory, of an internal revenue special tax stamp issued to a society of which he was president, held a violation of the defendant\u2019s constitutional rights as guarantied by section 10 of article II of the Constitution, providing that no person shall be compelled to give evidence against himself.\n2. Intoxicating liquors, \u00a7 140*\u2014when introduction of notice and subpoena duces tecum in evidence error. Introduction in evidence of a notice and subpoena duces tecum, served on the defendant in a prosecution for illegal sale of liquor in anti-saloon territory, calling for the production of an internal revenue special tax stamp issued to a society of which the defendant was president, held error.\n3. Intoxicating liquors, \u00a7 137*\u2014when testimony of reporter in former case inadmissible. In a prosecution for selling intoxicating liquor in anti-saloon territory, the admission of testimony of a reporter, who had reported a trial of a case between the State and a certain party, that the defendant in the present case had testified that the defendant in that case was working for him, held error in the absence of preliminary proof showing how such testimony could have been competent, relevant or material.\nJohn E. Hogan and E. E. Dowell, for plaintiff in error.\nHarry B. Hershey, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0170-01",
  "first_page_order": 212,
  "last_page_order": 213
}