{
  "id": 2593756,
  "name": "Thomas Newlan, Appellant, v. The President and Trustees of the Town of Aurora, Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Newlan v. President & Trustees of Aurora",
  "decision_date": "1856-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "379",
  "last_page": "380",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "17 Ill. 379"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 153,
    "char_count": 2054,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.529,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.207966869300525e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3280531027098491
    },
    "sha256": "8d413bd20c941b896338b9abe43074d5399181385cb29bb75b935381d6c765c7",
    "simhash": "1:af13935936259975",
    "word_count": 350
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:45:18.872749+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Thomas Newlan, Appellant, v. The President and Trustees of the Town of Aurora, Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Skinner, J.\nThis was an action of debt, brought by the Trustees of the town of Aurora, against Newlan, to recover penalties for alleged violations of an ordinance of said town, passed June 30th, 1853, and providing: \u201c that any person who shall sell within the limits of the corporation of the town of Aurora, any whisky or beer, or any other alcoholic or intoxicating drinks, in any quantity, shall be fined for every offence twenty-five dollars.\u201d\nThe bill of exceptions states, that on the trial, u the plaintiffs proved the sale by the defendant, within the limits of the corporation of the town of Aurora, of whisky and beer, at various times.\u201d\nIt does not appear when the sales were made, and without some evidence tending to show a sale after the ordinance took effect, the plaintiffs in no view of the case could recover. The Circuit Court should therefore have granted a new trial, the finding of the jury against the defendant being without evidence to justify it.\nNo opinion is expressed as to the validity of the ordinance.\nJudgment reversed and cause remanded.\nJudgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Skinner, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Day and Parks, for Appellant. .",
      "R. G-. Morton, for Appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Thomas Newlan, Appellant, v. The President and Trustees of the Town of Aurora, Appellees.\nAPPEAL FROM KENDALL.\nIn an action of debt for violating of a town ordinance, against selling liquor, in order to justify a recovery, it should be shown that the liquor had been sold, after the ordinance took effect.\nThis was a suit brought by the appellees against the appellant, on 17th day of December, 1853, before a justice of the peace, to recover certain penalties for the alleged violation of alleged ordinances of the town of Aurora\u2014for selling liquor\u2014 and brought by appeal and change of venue to the Circuit Court of Kendall county, and tried at September term, 1855, before Hollister, Judge, and a jury. Judgment of $100 against appellant.\nPlaintiffs below proved \u201c the sale by defendant, within the limits of the town Aurora, of whisky and beer, at various times,\u201d (the proof does not show ivhen.')\nDay and Parks, for Appellant. .\nR. G-. Morton, for Appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0379-01",
  "first_page_order": 375,
  "last_page_order": 376
}