{
  "id": 5279833,
  "name": "M. Felix Dachsenbuehler v. The People, etc.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dachsenbuehler v. People",
  "decision_date": "1900-06-08",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "493",
  "last_page": "494",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "89 Ill. App. 493"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "84 Ill. 624",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2650994
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/84/0624-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "81 Ill. 565",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2675928
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/81/0565-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 Ill. 211",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5315179
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/76/0211-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "73 Ill. 488",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5318683
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/73/0488-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "130 Ill 457",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        12128585
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/130/0457-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "75 Ill. App. 649",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5176194
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/75/0649-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "71 Ill. 303",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5310610
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/71/0303-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 253,
    "char_count": 3978,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.53,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.1572927610837543
    },
    "sha256": "6284383710c6186b9abf13d349ab6112792969e015f39a85f76318af02e89357",
    "simhash": "1:b52b5d656adc2301",
    "word_count": 705
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:30:54.280538+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "M. Felix Dachsenbuehler v. The People, etc."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Hjgbbe\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nPlaintiff in error was convicted in the court below of the illegal sale of liquor under an indictment containing four counts. The first charged the illegal sale of liquor in less quantity than five gallons; the second, the illegal sale of liquor not in the original packages as put up by the manufacturer; the third, the sale of liquor in less quantities than five gallons, not in the original packages as put up by the manufacturer; the fourth was substantially the same as the second. All the counts charged the place of sale as not being within the corporate limits of any city, town or village. Plaintiff in error was found guilty on the first and third counts and fined $75 under each. The court also imposed a general sentence of thirty days\u2019 imprisonment in the county jail, without specifying the count or counts under which he was so sentenced.\nThe bill of exceptions in this case does not purport to contain all the evidence. In such case the court will presume that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.\nThe court can not undertake to examine the correctness of the verdict unless all the evidence is preserved by bill of exceptions. Kern v. Strasberger et al., 71 Ill. 303; Stahl v. Pitney, 75 Ill. App. 649.\nThe bill of exceptions was also defective in not containing a motion for a new trial. It is true that the clerk has copied into the transcript what purports to be a motion for a new trial, but this is not sufficient, as the only mode in which the motion can be preserved is by the bill of exceptions. Harris v. The People, 130 Ill 457.\nIt follows that all questions growing out of the evidence and those based upon rulings of the court which require a motion for a new trial to preserve them, are not properly before this court. We have examined the two instructions complained of and do not find them objectionable when read together with all the other instructions in the case. The general judgment of imprisonment entered by the court, to which the plaintiff in error duly excepted, was not proper. The judgment should have been for a specified term under each count, the time under the second to commence at the end of the first. Bolun v. The People, 73 Ill. 488; Mullinix v. The People, 76 Ill. 211.\nAttorney for the defendant in error represents that the error in the judgment was made by the clerk in entering it and that the judge\u2019s minutes are correct. However this may be, as no steps have been taken to correct the error we must consider the judgment as we find it in the record. For the error above mentioned, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded; but on the authority of Creed v. The People, 81 Ill. 565, and Dyer v. The People, 84 Ill. 624, the court below is instructed to enter a proper judgment on the verdict.\nReversed and remanded with directions.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Hjgbbe"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "MoEniry & MoEniry and Connell & Thomason, attorneys for plaintiff in error.",
      "James M. Brook, State\u2019s Attorney, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "M. Felix Dachsenbuehler v. The People, etc.\n1. Practice\u2014When the Appellate Court Can Examine the Correctness of the Verdict.\u2014The Appellate Court can not undertake to examine the correctness of a verdict, unless all the evidence is preserved by bill of exceptions.\n2. Motions for New Trial\u2014Hew It May Be Preserved.\u2014The only mode in which a motion for a new trial may be preserved is by a bill of exceptions.\n3. Criminal Law\u2014Judgment When Defendant is Convicted on Tico Counts.\u2014Where a defendant is convicted on two counts of an indictment for the illegal sale of intoxicating liquor, the judgment of imprisonment should be for a specified time under each count, the time under the second to commence at the end of the first.\nIndictment, for illegal sale of liquors. Error to the Circuit Court of Mercer County; the Hon. Frank D. Ramsay, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1900.\nReversed and remanded with directions.\nOpinion filed June 8, 1900.\nMoEniry & MoEniry and Connell & Thomason, attorneys for plaintiff in error.\nJames M. Brook, State\u2019s Attorney, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0493-01",
  "first_page_order": 515,
  "last_page_order": 516
}