Bow v. People

• Decision Date: 28 March 1896
• Citation: 43 N.E. 593,160 Ill. 438
• Parties: GOON BOW et al. v. PEOPLE.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

160 Ill. 438

43 N.E. 593

GOON BOW et al.

v.PEOPLE.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

March 28, 1896.

Error to criminal court, Cook county; H. V. Freeman, Judge.

Goon Bow and others were convicted of robbery, and bring error. Affirmed.C. S. O'Meara, for plaintiffs in error.

M. T. Maloney, M. L. Newell, Samuel Richolson, and Geo. E. Bacon, for the People.

CARTWRIGHT, J.

Plaintiffs in error were convicted, in the criminal court of Cook county, of the crime of robbery, and sentenced to the penitentiary. The abstract of the record furnished is so incomplete that it is only with great difficulty that the questions raised have been examined, but we have gone to the record to get an understanding of them.

The first objection made is that, in addition to the oath prescribed by the laws of this state, the witnesses were also sworn according to a Chinese practice, which was called the ‘Chinese Chicken Oath.’ Upon looking into the record, it appears that counsel for the defendants moved the court that the Chinese witnesses on both sides should be required to take the Chinese chicken oath, to which counsel for the people objected, while counsel lor defendants argued that it was impossible to get some of the Chinese to tell the truth unless they were sworn in that manner. The court ruled that those of the witnesses who were willing might take the oath, but that none of them should be compelled to do so. Part of them wee sworn in that way, in addition to the regular oath. This proceeding having been had at the instance and request of the defendants, they cannot be heard to complain of it.

It is objected that the court erred in refusing to permit defendants to cross-emamine the complaining witness as to his connection with a gambling house. Counsel for defendants stated that he expected to show that the $10 of which it was charged the defendants robbed the witness, Soon Chong, was money lost at a gambling table; that the witness kept a gambling house, and took the $10 from one of the witnesses, Chin Men You, otherwise called Chan Mon Tan. The apparent purpose was to show that defendants merely repossessed themselves of $10 of which one of their number had been robbed in a gambling house. The court sustained an objection to some questions on that subject, but there was subsequent full examination about the loss of the money at a gambling table; and the defendants had all the benefit that could be derived from such an examination.

Objection is made that Lee Tow, a witness for the people, was permitted to testify to a statement of Soon Chong that he had been robbed. The evidence was that, at the time of the alleged robbery in the place of business of Soon Chong, the five defendants came running out of the place past the witnesses, and Soon Chong followed, and the witness said, ‘Him holler, ‘he robbed. Which way you see those parties go past here?’' This evidence was admissible as part of the res gestae

A witness, Chin Dock, was permitted to testify that he saw Chin Men You afterwards, that he had a pistol in his possession, and that he put up the pistol, and chased the witness. This was soon after the alleged robbery; and the witness, who was the partner of Soon Chong, had been to the station for a warrant. It was material to prove the possession session of the pistol at that time, and the evidence of this witness and others who were examined to the same point was competent for that purpose.

There was also evidence that Chin Lung Bow had a revolver at the time of his arrest, soon after the alleged robbery, and complaint is made that the police officer making the arrest was allowed to illustrate how he held the revolver when arrested. The only illustration was to show an attempt to conceal it and pass it to a friend. There was no impropriety in the evidence.

The defendant Chin Lung Bow (Chan...