Carrow v. People

Citations

• 113 Ill. 550
• 1885 Ill. LEXIS 727

Syllabus

<p>1. Change of ventje—diligence required in making application. An information was filed against a defendant on May 10, 1883, in the county court, for selling intoxicating liquor without a license, and he was arrested on the following day and gave bail for his appearance at the next term, which commenced on the 14th of the same month. On the 14th he served notice on the State’s attorney that he would ask for a change of venue, on account of the prejudice of the judge of the court, and on the next day filed his petition for that purpose in due form, and entered his motion for the change of venue, which the court overruled: Held, that it was error to refuse the motion, and that no greater diligence could be required than was shown.</p> <p>2. Information—of the affidavit—before whom it is to be made. The county court may grant leave to the State’s attorney to file an information against one for selling intoxicating liquors without a legal license, upon a proper affidavit made before a justice of the peace, which satisfies the court that there is probable cause for filing an information. It is not essential the affidavit should be made before the judge of the county court.</p> <p>3. Juror—competency—prejudice against the particular business. It is no legal objection to the competency of a juror in a prosecution for selling intoxicating liquors without a license, that he may not approve of selling such liquors either with or without a legal license to keep a dram-shop.</p> <p>4. But if a juror is so prejudiced against one charged with selling intoxicating liquors, or any other misdemeanor or crime, that he can not give the accused a fair and impartial trial, he will be incompetent to serve.</p>