delivered the opinion of the court.
People v. Schlick, 200 Ill. App. 605 (1915)
Oct. 13, 1915
·
Illinois Appellate Court
200 Ill. App. 605
The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Adolph Schlick and Bernhart Kile, Plaintiffs in Error. The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. George Schenk, Plaintiff in Error. The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Charles Seibert and John Seibert, Plaintiffs in Error. The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Anthony Shearer and Harry Meisenhelter, Plaintiffs in Error.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Writs of error to the Circuit Court of Macon county; the Hon. William K. Whitfield, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1915.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed October 13, 1915.
Statement of the Case.
Prosecutions by the People of the State of Illinois, plaintiff, against Adolph Schlick ánd Bernhart Kile, defendants; against George Schenk, defendant; against Charles Seibert and John Seibert, defendants; against Anthony Shearer and Harry Meisenhelter, defendants, for violation of the Local Option Law (J. & A. 4637 et seq.). Prom judgments of conviction, the defendants bring writs of' error.
By agreement of the parties all the writs of error were consolidated in this court. Trial by jury was waived in all the cases and they were tried by the court on agreed stipulations of fact. The stipulations of fact in these cases were identically the same as those which appear in the case of City of Decatur v. Schlick, 269 Ill. 181, with the exception that in the latter case the judgments appealed from were obtained by prosecutions brought .under a city ordinance of the *606City of Decatur, while the judgments from which the writs of error were prosecuted from this court were obtained by prosecutions under the statute. The above case is referred to for these stipulations.
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Intoxicating liquors, § 80 * —when defendants guilty of violating Local Option Law by shifts and devices. On prosecutions for selling intoxicating liquor in violation of the Local Option Law (J. & A. If 4637 se seq.), all the writs of error being consolidated, held, following Oity of Decatur v. Schlick, 269 Ill. 181, that the defendants were guilty of violating such act by means of shifts and devices.
2. Courts, § 150*—when opinion of Supreme Oou-rt on same facts binding. The decision of the Supreme Court upon the same facts involved in a criminal prosecution is res judicata and binding on the Appellate Court.
The only question involved in these writs of error was whether the several defendants in error were guilty of violating said act by means of shifts and devices.
Charles C. Le Forges and Vail & Miller, for plaintiffs in error.
Jesse L. Deck and Charles F. Evans, for defendant in error.