{ "id": 5130297, "name": "McDonald v. The People", "name_abbreviation": "McDonald v. People", "decision_date": "1893-12-12", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "357", "last_page": "360", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "49 Ill. App. 357" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "70 Ill. 171", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5310264 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/70/0171-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 Ill. 144", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2702552 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/74/0144-01" ] }, { "cite": "92 Ill. 598", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2742341 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/92/0598-01" ] }, { "cite": "3 Scam. 83", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Scam.", "case_ids": [ 2471138 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/4/0083-01" ] }, { "cite": "95 Ill. 394", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2722349 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/95/0394-01" ] }, { "cite": "109 Ill. 635", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2853447 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/109/0635-01" ] }, { "cite": "131 Ill. 223", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5416972 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/131/0223-01" ] }, { "cite": "26 Ill. 173", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5245092 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/26/0173-01" ] }, { "cite": "15 Ill. 536", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 436697 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/15/0536-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 Ill. 257", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "137 Ill. 75", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5439361 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/137/0075-01" ] }, { "cite": "55 N. W. Rep. 516", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "28 Pac. Rep. 1121", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "17 S.W. Rep. 430", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "10 So. Rep. 106", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So.", "opinion_index": -1 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 398, "char_count": 7114, "ocr_confidence": 0.354, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.478059703679935e-07, "percentile": 0.6605836865392538 }, "sha256": "0ec65f652af500514241c8b01123d1ffec86b230b98b36c391c2293f4ca843b8", "simhash": "1:8040a4c9de756212", "word_count": 1247 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:20:14.004565+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "McDonald v. The People." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Opinion of the Ooubt,\nLaoey, J.\nThis was a case where the plaintiff in error had been indicted in the Circuit Court, on a charge of selling intoxicating liquors in violation of the Dram Shop Act \u201d and without license. The indictment contained fifty counts.\nOn motion of the plaintiff in error, the venue was changed from the Circuit Court to the County Court, the plaintiff in error swearing that all three of the circuit judges were prejudiced against him, so that he could not receive a fair trial. When the case reached the County Court, plaintiff in error made another motion for a change of venue, this time basing his motion upon a supposed prejudice of the inhabitants of the county of Lee, against him. The plaintiff in error\u2019s affidavit, bases his grounds of belief on certain derogatory articles against him, published in the county newspaper of Ogle County, of small circulation, the Crest\u00f3n Observer, and in support of the petition lie filed affidavits of some fourteen citizens of the county, all of whom sustained the petition, and swore that in their belief the plaintiff in error could not have a fair trial in the county on account of the prejudice of the inhabitants against Mm. The state\u2019s attorney filed six counter affidavits, the makers of which were of the opinion that there was not any prejudice in the minds of the inhabitants of the county against the plaintiff in error that would prevent him from receiving a fair trial.\nWe have examined the affidavits, and are of the opinion that the county judge, after all were considered, was fully justified in overruling the plaintiff in error\u2019s motion for a change of venue from the county.\nWhen arraigned plaintiff in error stood mute \u201d and the court entered for him a plea of not guilty, and the cause went to trial on such a plea before a jury. The result of it was that the plaintiff in error was found guilty by the jury on all the counts in the indictment, fifty in number, upon which, after overruling plaintiff in error\u2019s motion for a new trial, the court sentenced him to pay a fine of \u00a720 on each count and costs of suit. The court below committed no error in allowing witnesses to testify whose names were not on the back of the indictment. This was a misdemeanor, and the law does not require witnesses\u2019 names to be placed on the hack of the indictment as conceded by counsel for plaintiff in error. There was no error in the ruling of the court in permitting e >rtain evidence complained of to be admitted. The question to Sanderson, .witness for the people, \u201c\u201cWhat did yon see Colby doing there2 \u201d was not improper. It was not assumed that he was doing anything wrong. The main objection made to the verdict is that the evidence failed to support it. We have read all the evidence over and think it fully sustained the verdict.\nWhile the plaintiff in error, as we gather from the evidence, was trying to secrete illegal sales of intoxicating liquors under the guise of selling \u201c ginger ale,\u201d \u201c cider \u201d and soda water \u201d and other harmless things, and while some of the people\u2019s witnesses prevaricated while on the witness stand and apparently tried to shield the plaintiff in error, there was sufficient evidence to fully justify the jury in finding the verdict of guilty on the entire number of counts contained in the indictment. It appears to us clear that the plaintiff in error was habitually selling intoxicating liquors without a license, and under such circumstances it would be strange, indeed, if he had not far exceeded in illegal sales the number of which he was eharg\u2019ed and found guilty. The evidence fully sustains the verdict. The leading questions put to the people\u2019s witnesses by the court and counsel were not improper.\nThe}\u201d were manifestly unwilling witnesses, which the court could plainly see, and it was justified in the course pursued.\nThe modification of the plaintiff in error\u2019s twelfth instruction was not error; the substance of it as modified was the same as it was when offered by the defendant.\nSeeing no error in the record the judgment of the court below is affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Laoey, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "O\u2019Bbien & O\u2019Bbien, and Dixon & Bethea, attorneys for plaintiff in error.", "Defendants\u2019 Bbief, Ohables B. Mobbison, State\u2019s Attobney." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "McDonald v. The People.\nTu Verme\u2014Change of\u2014Affidavits.\u2014Plaintiff made a motion in the County Court for a change of venue, basing his motion upon a supposed prejudice of the inhabitants of the county, stating as his ground, certain derogatory articles published in the county newspaper of the adjoining county. Im support of Ms petition he filed the affidavits of fourteen citizens of the county, all of whom stated, that, in their belief, \u00a1plaintiff in error could not have a fair trial in the county, etc. The state\u2019s attorney filed six counter affidavits, the affiants in wliich were at the opinion that there was mot any prejudice in the minds of the inhabitants, against the defendant, that would prevent him from receiving a fair trial The County Court overruled the motion for a change of uenue. It was held by the Appellate Court, upon examination of the affidavits, that the County Court was justified in overruling the motion.\n2. Pleading in Criminal Cases.\u2014Where a defendant is arraigned and \u25a0\u201c stands mute\u201d it is the duty of the court to enter for him a plea of not guilty.\n8. Indorsing Witnesses upon the Back of the Indictments.\u2014In the \u00a1prosecution of misdemeanors the law does not require the names of the witnesses to be placed upon the back of the indictment.\n4. Witnesses\u2014Leading Questions.\u2014Where a witness is manifestly unwilling to testify it is not error to allow the party calling him to. ask leading questions.\nMemorandum.\u2014Indictment, violation of the dram shop act. Error to the County Court of Lee County; the Hon. Richabd S. Fabband, Judge, presiding. Heai-d in this court at the May term, 189S, and affirmed.\nOpinion filed December 12, 1893.\nThe statement of facts is contained in the opinion o\u00ed the court.\nO\u2019Bbien & O\u2019Bbien, and Dixon & Bethea, attorneys for plaintiff in error.\nDefendants\u2019 Bbief, Ohables B. Mobbison, State\u2019s Attobney.\nAn application for a change of venue on account of the prejudice of the people, is- addressed to the discretion of the court, and its ruling refusing the change will not be disturbed unless the discretion is abused. Adams v. State (Fla.), 10 So. Rep. 106; Martin v. State (Tex.), 17 S.W. Rep. 430; Power v. People (Col.), 28 Pac. Rep. 1121; Perrin v. State, 55 N. W. Rep. 516; Hickam v. People, 137 Ill. 75; Barron v. People, 73 Ill. 257; Maton v. People, 15 Ill. 536; Myers v. People, 26 Ill. 173; Price v. People, 131 Ill. 223; Dunn v. People, 109 Ill. 635.\nHo request was made by the plaintiff in error or Ms counsel for a list of the witnesses, so that he is not in condition to complain because witnesses were called and sworn, whose names were not on the back of the indictment; and had he requested a list of the witnesses it would he a matter entirely in the discretion of the court to permit other witnesses to he called. Unless the court can see that the discretion was abused it will not interfere. Bulliner v. People, 95 Ill. 394; Gardner v. People, 3 Scam. 83; Logg v. People, 92 Ill. 598; Smith v. People, 74 Ill. 144; Perteet v. People, 70 Ill. 171." }, "file_name": "0357-01", "first_page_order": 353, "last_page_order": 356 }