{
  "id": 5826024,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Martin Svete, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Svete",
  "decision_date": "1918-02-12",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 6,427",
  "first_page": "421",
  "last_page": "422",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "210 Ill. App. 421"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 183,
    "char_count": 2186,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.532,
    "sha256": "bd1822035aa4819b7923f19acad6b78a502f5aaeee17e4dbf9261c2faa2f6bad",
    "simhash": "1:4eef4ab3736cb388",
    "word_count": 381
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:15:15.348169+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. Martin Svete, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Dibell\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n3. Criminal law, \u00a7 583*\u2014waiver of assignments of error not argued. Assignments of error, in a criminal case, which are not argued are deemed waived.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Dibell"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "George W. Field, for plaintiff in error.",
      "James G. Welch, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Martin Svete, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 6,427.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Criminal law, \u00a7 580 \u2014when error in remarks by court deemed waived. If a motion for new trial is made by defendant in a criminal case, and the grounds thereof are stated in writing, the defendant is limited to those reasons and all other errors are deemed waived, such as impropriety in remarks by the court.\n2. Criminal law, \u00a7 431*\u2014when question of error in orally directing jury to return to jury r\u00f3om and amend verdict not saved for review. The point that the court erred in orally directing the jury in a criminal case, upon its returning to the court room with a verdict finding the defendant guilty1 under a certain number of the counts in the indictment without specifying which ones, to return to the jury room and amend their verdict by giving the number of the counts under which they found the defendant guilty, is not saved for review where the only objection made at the time, and later in the motion for a new trial, was that it was error to direct the jury to amend the verdict.\nError to the Circuit Court of Lake county; the Hon. Claibe C. Edwards, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1917.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed February 12, 1918.\nRehearing denied April 9, 1918.\nStatement of the Case.\nProsecution by the People of the State of Illinois, plaintiff, against Martin Svete, defendant, for unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor in anti-saloon territory. From a judgment of conviction under five counts, imposing a fine of $75 and sentencing him to imprisonment for 20 days under each count, and ordering confinement in the county jail until the fine and costs are paid, defendant brings error.\nGeorge W. Field, for plaintiff in error.\nJames G. Welch, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vola. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number\u00bb"
  },
  "file_name": "0421-01",
  "first_page_order": 447,
  "last_page_order": 448
}