Humpeler v. People

Citations

• 92 Ill. 400

Syllabus

<p>1. Criminal law—variance. As the sale, and the giving away, of intoxicating liquor to persons in the habit of getting intoxicated, are distinct and separate offences, proof of the one will not sustain a count in an indictment for the other.</p> <p>2. Same—selling liquor to one in the habit of getting intoxicated. The statute makes it a crime to sell intoxicating liquor to a person in the habit of getting intoxicated, whether the vendor has or has not knowledge of the habits of the person to whom the sale is made. Therefore, proof that the vendor did not know that the person to whom he sold the liquor was in the habit of getting intoxicated, will constitute no defence.</p> <p>3. Same-—indorsement on indicim'ent does not vitiate. Where an indictment for selling and giving away intoxicating liquors to a person in the habit of getting intoxicated, and each count thereof, states the offence in the language of the statute, it will not be vitiated because the offence indorsed on the back of the indictment is not in the precise language of the statute.</p> <p>4. Instruction—when refusal to give can not be considered. This court will not consider the propriety of refusing instructions where those given for the party are not preserved in the record.</p>