Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

49 Ill. App. 73

Holcomb v. People

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided March 6, 1893

Appellate Court of Illinois · decided 1893-03-06

Memorandum.-Sale of intoxicating liquors. Appeal from a fine imposed by the County Court of Pike County; the Hon. EDWARD D000ay, County Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the November term, A. D. 1892.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1893-03-06

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently December 1926

1 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

201893190019101920decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Opinion of tiie Court,

Boggs, «7.

¶2This is an appeal from a judgment imposing upon the appellant a fine for alleged unlawful sales of intoxicating liquors. Counsel for the people in their brief say: “ The case upon its merits presents a single issue, and that is whether extract of lemon may be sold without violating section 2 of the dram shop act.”

¶3An article generally and properly known and used for culinary purposes, recognized, and a formula prescribed for its preparation as such, in standard dispensatories prior to the enactment of the dram shop act, and not then known and classed among liquors used as a beverage, is not, we think, to be deemed an intoxicating liquor within the meaning of the enactment, simply because it contains alcohol, and may, or in fact does, produce intoxication.

¶4This view is supported by the cases collected in Vol. 37 American Reports, page 284. (Intoxicating Liquor cases.) See also Black on Intoxicating Liquor, chapter 1, Sec. 8. Extract of lemon, it appears from the evidence, is such a preparation, and it is not to be deemed as within our statute, simply upon proof that it contains alcohol in sufficient quality to produce, and does produce, intoxication. There is no proof that the sales of extract of lemon, of which the appellant was convicted, were mere shifts or devices to avoid the penalties or evade the provisions of the dram shop act.

¶5The judgment must be and is reversed and the cause remanded.

/49/illapp/73 · .json · Public domain