{
  "id": 2947364,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Otto Wallin, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Wallin",
  "decision_date": "1917-02-10",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 6,332",
  "first_page": "124",
  "last_page": "125",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "204 Ill. App. 124"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 151,
    "char_count": 1808,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.564,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.548627546539126e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2852287913310776
    },
    "sha256": "71b1b024a323f21df7adda8299c7980fb6035b63dec4b34e802d475175ce11b5",
    "simhash": "1:3a52c320b0c83065",
    "word_count": 305
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:49:07.214052+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. Otto Wallin, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Dibell\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Dibell"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "P. L. Jorgenson, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Ralph J. Dady and E. M. Runyard, for defendant in error; W. F. Weiss, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Otto Wallin, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 6,332.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the County Court of Lake county; the Hon. Perky L. Persons, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed February 10, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nProsecution by the People of the State of Illinois, plaintiff, against Otto Wallin, defendant, charging him with a violation of the Anti-Saloon Act. From a judgment of conviction on fifteen counts and fines aggregating $1,150 and sentence to imprisonment for thirty days, defendant brings error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Intoxicating liquors, \u00a7 147 \u2014when evidence is insufficient to prove drinking of malt liquor in saloon. In a prosecution for violation of the Anti-Saloon Act, evidence held insufficient to show beyond a reasonable doubt that \u201cbuck,\u201d an alleged malt liquor, was drunk by certain persons in defendant\u2019s saloon.\n2. Criminal law, \u00a7 594*\u2014when judgment of conviction on all counts of information should he affirmed or reversed as to all. A judgment of conviction on all counts of an information must be affirmed or reversed as to all and cannot be affirmed as to part and reversed as to part.\n3. Intoxicating liquors, \u00a7 128*\u2014when judgment of conviction on all counts of information cannot he sustained. A judgment of conviction on all counts of an information under the Anti-Saloon Act cannot be sustained by testimony as to sales down to the time of trial.\nP. L. Jorgenson, for plaintiff in error.\nRalph J. Dady and E. M. Runyard, for defendant in error; W. F. Weiss, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same r topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0124-01",
  "first_page_order": 150,
  "last_page_order": 151
}