
    The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Charles D. Johnson, Plaintiff in Error.
    (Not to he reported in full.)
    Error to the County Court of McLean county; the Hon. Homes W. Hall, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1915.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed October 13, 1915.
    Statement of the Case.
    Prosecution by the People of the State of Illinois, plaintiff, against Charles D. Johnson, defendant, for selling intoxicating liquor in violation of the Local Option Law (J. & A. 4637 et seq.). From a judgment of conviction, defendant brings writ of error.
    There was ample evidence that the defendant sold a malt liquor containing various percentages of alcohol called “Temp Brew.” It was contended that the court erred in giving certain instructions on be- • half of the People, which in substance, told the jury that the words “Intoxicating Liquor” include all distilled,, spirituous, vinous, fermented and malt liquors, regardless of whether said liquors would, as a matter of fact, produce intoxication. The plaintiff offered several instructions, which were refused by the court, stating, in substance, that the burden was upon the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that he sold liquor which was, in fact, intoxicating, and the refusal to give them was also assigned as error.
    Quinn & Quinn, Heyl & McGrath and D. J. Sammon, for plaintiff in error.
    . Miles K. Young, for defendant in error; W. B. Leach, of counsel.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice Eldredge

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Intoxicating liquors, § 158 —when instruction as to what constitutes correct. On a prosecution ,for selling intoxicating liquor in violation of the Local Option Law (L & A. 1 4637 et seq.), an instruction in the language of the statute (L & A. If 4637) that the words “intoxicating liquor” “include all distilled, spirituous, vinous, fermented and malt liquors,” regardless of whether said liquors would, as a matter of fact, produce intoxication, held correct.

2. Intoxicating liquors, § 5*—when statutory definition valid. The Legislature has the power and right to declare malt liquor to be an intoxicating liquor, irrespective of its intoxicating character.

3. Intoxicating liquors, § 159*—when instructions on burden of proof properly refused. On a prosecution for selling intoxicating ■ liquor in violation of the Local Option Law (J. & A. If 4637 et seq.), the refusal of requested instructions on behalf of defendant that the burden was upon the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that he sold liquor which was, in fact, intoxicating, held proper.  