#### City of LaHarpe, Appellee, v. George Watts, Sr., Appellant.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Appeal from the County Court of Hancock county; the Hon. E. W. Dunham, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.

Reversed.

Opinion filed April 16, 1917.

Statement of the Case.

Prosecution by the City of LaHarpe, plaintiff, against George "Watts, Sr., defendant, for violation of *4an ordinance of the plaintiff concerning dramshops, wholesale stores and the sale of intoxicating liquors. From a judgment of conviction and adjudging defendant to pay one hundred and sixty dollars, defendant appeals.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Intoxicating liquors, § 17 * —when license ordinance invalid. Ordinance No. 88 of the City of LaHarpe, providing that when the city council should elect to grant a license to keep a dramshop or to sell intoxicating liquors the council should at the time of granting such license determine and fix the amount of the fee to be paid, etc., held'void in not definitely fixing the amount of such fee.

2. Intoxicating liquors, § 40*—validity of license issued under void ordinance. A dramshop license issued .under a city ordinance which is void affords no protection to the holder of it.

3. Intoxicating liquors, § 17*—when license ordinance suspended. A city ordinance' for the licensing of dramshops passed prior to the time the city became anti-saloon territory, held to be suspended during the time such city remained anti-saloon territory, under J. & A. V 4644, providing that ordinances for the restriction, regulation or prohibition of the sale of intoxicating liquors, so far as inconsistent with the status of such territory as anti-saloon territory, shall be suspended during the time it remains such territory.

4. Intoxicating liquors—when no conviction may he had for violation of suspended license ordinance. No conviction may be had for violation of a city ordinance for the licensing of dram-shops while such ordinance stands suspended, under J. & A. H 4644, providing that ordinances for the restriction, regulation or prohibition of the sale of intoxicating liquors, so far as inconsistent with the status of territory as anti-saloon territory, shall be suspended during the time such territory remains anti-saloon territory.

Plantz & Lamet and Hartzell & Cavanagh, for appellant.

C. W. Warner and J. W. Williams, for appellee.

*

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

Mr. Justice Eldredge

delivered the opinion of the court.

*55. Intoxicating liquors—when prosecution should he in name of People of State. Where intoxicating liquors were sold in anti-saloon territory in a city whose ordinances provided for the licensing of dramshops and for a penalty for selling such liquors without having such license, held that a prosecution for selling such liquors should be in the name of the People of the State under the law by which the anti-saloon territory was created and not in the name of the city under such ordinances.