Brown v. People of State

• Decision Date: 30 September 1877
• Citation: 1877 WL 9703,29 Am.Rep. 25,86 Ill. 239
• Parties: JOHN W. BROWNv.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

86 Ill. 239

1877 WL 9703 (Ill.)

29 Am.Rep. 25

JOHN W. BROWN

v.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1877.

WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Knox County; the Hon. ARTHUR A. SMITH, Judge, presiding.

Mr. A. L. HUMPHREY, for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. J. J. TUNNICLIFF, State's Attorney, for the People. Mr. JUSTICE BREESE delivered the opinion of the Court:

This is an indictment preferred by the grand jury of Knox county at the June term, 1876, against John Brown, for forgery. The charge was, that in the county of Knox, on the first day of February, 1876, the defendant, unlawfully, feloniously and willfully contriving to injure, damage, and defraud one Eliza Penn, did then and there unlawfully, feloniously, knowingly, and falsely forge and counterfeit a certain instrument in writing purporting to be a public record and authentic matter of a public nature, viz., a decree of divorce, pretended to be granted in the Marion county circuit court of the State of Indiana, which said false, forged, and counterfeited instrument of writing is as follows:

“ State of Indiana, Marion County, ss. In Marion County Circuit Court, to January Term, A. D. 1876. John W. Brown v. Mary J. Brown. Divorce.

And now this cause coming on for a final hearing, in said court, and the evidence being heard and it was proven that John W. Brown was married to Mary J. Shum, October 18th, 1870, and that Mary J. Shum, now Mary J. Brown, was guilty of repeated abuse and desertion, for the space of two years previous to the filing of the bill for divorce in this cause; and it also appearing by the evidence that said parties have one child, named Clara Brown, by said marriage, aged about three years; it also appearing by the evidence that the said Mary J. Brown was guilty of repeated abuse, and further that she, Mary J. Brown, deserted and left her husband, on or about the 15th day of January, A. D. 1874, without cause or provocation. Now, therefore, it is ordered and decreed by the court, that the said John W. Brown and Mary J. Brown are henceforth and forever divorced and that the bonds of matrimony heretofore existing between them are forever dissolved, and that the said Mary J. Brown retain the care and custody of said child, Clara Brown, till she becomes of the age of fourteen years, and that said John W. Brown pay the costs of this case to the officers and witnesses.

C. H. MOFFIT,

Judge Circuit Court, Marion Co., Ind.”

The indictment properly concludes. A motion was made to quash the indictment, which was denied, and the defendant, pleading not guilty, was put upon his trial before a jury, who found him guilty as charged, and fixed his punishment at two years' confinement in the penitentiary. A motion for a new trial was made and denied, and a like disposition was made of defendant's motion in arrest of judgment, and judgment rendered on the verdict.

To reverse this judgment defendant has obtained a writ of error and brought the record to this court.

Various errors are assigned,...