{
  "id": 2964148,
  "name": "Cecil Horrigths, Appellee, v. Peter Troesch et al., Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Horrigths v. Troesch",
  "decision_date": "1916-06-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "433",
  "last_page": "435",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "201 Ill. App. 433"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 225,
    "char_count": 3351,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.586,
    "sha256": "97b3fe8d2ec2287cbf4b98590f4a502ea96a0f45b190eaaea40321243413d56a",
    "simhash": "1:cffd9f25c93312ac",
    "word_count": 567
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:52:04.845486+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Cecil Horrigths, Appellee, v. Peter Troesch et al., Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Thompson\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n4. Intoxicating liquors, \u00a7 247*\u2014when death of person due to intoxication of another is question for jury. In an action by a wife under the Dramshop Act, sec. 9 (J. & A. \u00b6 4609), for injury to her means of support, resulting from her husband having been killed by one to whom the defendant saloon keeper had sold intoxicating liquor, held that the question - whether the intoxication was the proximate cause of the killing was for the jury.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Thompson"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. H. Nelms and F. P. Drennan, for appellants.",
      "S. H. Cummins, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Cecil Horrigths, Appellee, v. Peter Troesch et al., Appellants.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Sangamon county; the Hon. Frank W. Burton, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1916.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 10, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Cecil Horrigths, plaintiff, against Peter Troesch, George Reisch, Joseph Reisch and Annie Reisch, defendants, under the Dramshop Act, sec. 9 (J. & A. \u00b6 4609), for injury to her means of support. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. The defendants were saloon keepers, alleged to have sold liquor which caused intoxication of the plaintiff\u2019s husband and of one Young who, while intoxicated, killed her husband. The owners of the premises on which such liquor was sold were also joined as defendants.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Intoxicating liquors, \u00a7 227 \u2014how knowledge of owner of building of traffic in liquor shoion. In an action by a wife under the Dramshop Act, sec. 9 (J. & A. \u00b6 4609), against a saloon keeper and owners of premises where the intoxicants were sold, it may be shown by facts and circumstances that the owners knew that the occupant was engaged in the sale of intoxicating liquor.\n2. Intoxicating liquors, \u00a7 227 \u2014when evidence sufficient to show knowledge by owner of building of sale of. In an action by a wife under the Dramshop Act, sec. 9 (J. & A. \u00b6 4609), against a saloon keeper and. owners of premises whereon the intoxicants were sold, held that the fact that the saloon keeper had conducted a dramshop on the premises for several years was a circumstance from which the jury could reasonably infer that the owner knew that intoxicating liquor was being sold there. 3. Intoxicating liquors, \u00a7 172*\u2014when degree of intoxication immaterial. In an action by a wife under the Dramshop Act, sec. 9 (J. & A. \u00b6 4609), for injury to her means of support,, held that if the intoxication caused by the defendant saloon keeper was such that in consequence thereof the plaintiff' suffered damage to her means of support, the degree of intoxication was immaterial.\nThe evidence showed that Young and Horrigths were coal miners. They received their pay the morning of April 30th, and spent the afternoon of that .day in and about Troesch\u2019s saloon, drinking, and both got very drunk. They lived in the same house and went home drunk. While in that condition Horrigths quarreled with his wife. Mrs. Young interfered and Young and Horrigths also got into a quarrel, after which Young, while still intoxicated, shot and- killed Horrigths.\nW. H. Nelms and F. P. Drennan, for appellants.\nS. H. Cummins, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0433-01",
  "first_page_order": 475,
  "last_page_order": 477
}