
    The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Tillman Phillips, Plaintiff in Error.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Criminal law, § 220
      
      —when witnesses whose names are not indorsed on back of indictment may be examined. It is within the discretion of the trial court in a criminal case to permit witnesses whose names are not indorsed on the back of the indictment to be examined on behalf of the People.
    2. Intoxicating liquors, § 151*—when evidence is sufficient to sustain conviction for making sale in anti-saloon territory. In a criminal prosecution for selling liquor in anti-saloon territory, evidence of the issuance of an internal revenue special tax stamp to defendant and another as retail liquor dealers at a certain location and of sales of liquor on the premises to different persons at different times, held sufficient to sustain a judgment of conviction.
    
      Error to the Circuit Court of Champaign county; the Hon. Frank-lot H. Boggs, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court' at the April term, 1917.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed July 14, 1917.
    Statement of the Case.
    Prosecution by the People of the State of Illinois, plaintiff, against Tillman Phillips, defendant, for selling intoxicating liquor in anti-saloon territory. From a judgment sentencing defendant to fifteen days’ imprisonment in jail on each count, etc., and to pay a fine of $50 on each count, defendant brings error.
    C. M. Mathews, for plaintiff in error; W. G. Spurgin, of counsel.
    Louis A. Busch and Harold D. Roth, for defendant in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols, XI to XT, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice Thompson

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Criminal law, § 460*—when necessary to incorporate all instructions in abstract. The instructions given in a criminal case are considered as a series, are not tlie instructions of the'parties and should all appear in the abstract where a particular instruction is complained of.

4. Intoxicating liquors, § 158*—when instruction is not misleading. An instruction in a criminal prosecution for the sale of liquor in anti-saloon territory is not erroneous and misleading because not telling the jury that they may find the defendant guilty on one count and not on all counts, where the jury are fully instructed on the subject in other instructions.

5. Intoxicating liquors, § 158*-—when instruction is not erroneous as singling out testimony. An instruction in a criminal prosecution for the sale of intoxicating liquor in anti-saloon territory that* prima facie evidence is sufficient to establish a fact unless that evidence is rebutted, is not erroneous on the ground that when taken with another instruction in the language of the statute that the issuance of an internal revenue special tax stamp by the United States in anti-saloon territory shall he prima facie evidence of the sale of intoxicating liquor by such person receiving the stamp at the place where it is posted; it singles out testimony as defined.  