#### The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Earl Hardy, Plaintiff in Error.

(Not to he reported in full.)

Error to the County Court of Morgan county; the Hon. William E. Thomson, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1916.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed October 13, 1916.

Statement of the Case.

Prosecution by information by the People of the State of Illinois, plaintiff, against Earl Hardy, defendant, for selling liquor in anti-saloon territory. To review a judgment against him, defendant prosecutes a writ of error.

The jury returned as their verdict a paper in the following language:

“The Court instructs the Jury, if you find the defendant guilty the form of yóur verdict may be: ‘We, the Jury, find the defendant, Guilty Earl Hardy, guilty of selling intoxicating liquor in manner and form as charged in the First Count of the information,’ the Jury to fill the blank with the number of the Count or Counts you find the defendant guilty of.”

William N. Hairgrove, for plaintiff in error.

Egbert Tilton, for defendant in error.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Appeal and ebbob, § 1522 * —when informality should not vitiate verdict. When a verdict does substantial justice, informality should not vitiate it.

2. Intoxicating liquobs, § 160*—when informal verdict sufficient *485 in criminal prosecution for selling liquor. A verdict in a criminal prosecution for illegally selling intoxicating liquor in anti-saloon territory, although defective in form, helct sufficient to sustain a judgment against the defendant.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

*484Mr. Justice. Graves

delivered the opinion of the court.