delivered the opinion of the court.
People v. Ermovich, 201 Ill. App. 357 (1916)
April 21, 1916
·
Illinois Appellate Court
201 Ill. App. 357
The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Henry Ermovich, Plaintiff in Error.
(Not to he reported in full.)
Error to the County Court of Christian county; the Hon. C. A. Prater, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1915.
Reversed and remanded.
Opinion filed April 21, 1916.
Statement of the Case.
Prosecution by the People of the State of Illinois, plaintiff, against Henry Ermovich, defendant, for illegal sale of intoxicating liquor in anti-saloon terri*358tory. To review a judgment against defendant, the latter prosecutes a writ of error.
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Evidence, § 138 * —when notice to produce original document not necessary. In a prosecution for illegal sale of intoxicating liquor in anti-saloon territory, it is not necessary that the State prove that it cannot produce an original internal revenue tax stamp in order to entitle it to introduce secondary evidence of its contents.
2. Intoxicating liquors, § 140*—when subpoena duces tecum and notice to produce tax stamp erroneously admitted, in evidence. Where, on a prosecution for illegal sale of intoxicating liquor in anti-saloon territory, the only evidence connecting the defendant with the sale was that the location of cluhrooms in which the liquor was sold was in a building adjoining his store and that his name appeared on membership cards and on tickets sold by the club and which were exchanged for liquor, and, as president of the club, in an internal revenue tax stamp issued to it, held that a subpoena duces tecum served on the defendant commanding him to produce such stamp on the trial and the sheriff’s return thereon, and a notice to produce the stamp, were improperly admitted in evidence.
3. " Intoxicating liquors, § 147*—when evidence insufficient to sustain conviction for illegal sale of. Evidence introduced on a prosecution for the illegal sale of intoxicating liquor in anti-saloon territory, showing merely that the location of cluhrooms in which the liquor was sold was in a building adjoining a store of the defendant, and that his name appeared on the club’s membership cards and tickets sold by it and exchanged for liquor, and as president of the club in an internal revenue tax stamp issued to the club, held insufficient to sustain a conviction when there was no evidence that the defendant had any knowledge of such use of his name.
John E. Hogan and E. E. Dowell, for plaintiff in error.
Harry B. Hershey, for defendant in error.