Conley v. People of State
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
| Writing for the Court | SCOTT |
| Citation | 80 Ill. 236,1875 WL 8741 |
| Parties | JOHN CONLEYv.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. |
| Decision Date | 30 September 1875 |
80 Ill. 236
1875 WL 8741 (Ill.)
JOHN CONLEY
v.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.
Supreme Court of Illinois.
September Term, 1875.
[80 Ill. 237]
WRIT OF ERROR to the Criminal Court of Cook county; the Hon. HENRY BOOTH, Judge, presiding.Mr. WILLIAM S. FELKER, and Mr. CHESTER KINNEY, for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE SCOTT delivered the opinion of the Court:
Plaintiff in error was indicted, with others, for the crime of larceny, in obtaining money by a game called “three card monte,” from one Edward Nelson. On the trial he was convicted, and sentenced to the penitentiary for a period of three years. Previous to the commencement of the trial the accused entered a motion for a continuance of the cause, which motion was based on an affidavit. That motion the court overruled, and its decision thereon is the only error assigned.
It appears defendant was arrested on the 9th day of June, charged with the crime mentioned in the indictment, and was immediately locked in the police station. On the next morning he was taken before a magistrate for examination. On his application the hearing of the cause was postponed to the 12th day of the same month. He was remanded to prison. In the meantime the present indictment was found by the grand jury of the county, which happened to be in session.
The accused states, in his affidavit, upon which his motion for a continuance was based, that he had been confined in jail from the time of his arrest, on the 9th day of June, until the morning of the 14th day of the same month, when he was brought out for trial, during which time he had had no opportunity to confer with counsel to prepare for his defense, until the morning of the trial. He alleges his entire innocence of the crime with which he is charged, and shows he could not then safely proceed to trial, on account of the absence from the State of a witness, whose name and residence he gives, by whom he expects to be able to prove facts indispensable to his defense.
On examination, we find the facts the accused expects to be able to prove by the absent witness are material to the defense;
that the witness was not absent by the consent or procurement of the accused; that he had used every possible means within his power to prepare for trial, and that he expected to be able to procure the attendance of the witness at the next term of the court.In view of the fact the accused had been so recently arrested, and no opportunity afforded him to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hollywood v. State, 654
...to the assistance of counsel. (State v. Pool, 23 So. 503; Dunn v. People, 109 Ill. 635; Wray v. People, 78 Ill. 212; Conley v. People, 80 Ill. 236; State v. Simpson, 38 La. Ann. 24; State v. Ferris, 16 La. Ann. 425; State v. Brooks, (La.) 1 So. 421.) The record discloses that questions were......
-
State v. Rice
...47 Am. Rep. 822, 17 N.W. 90.) 3. And failure to allow the accused proper time in which to prepare for trial is error. (Conley v. People, 80 Ill. 236; Metts v. State, 29 Ga. 271; State v. Lewis, 1 Bay (S. C.), 1; Newman v. State, 22 Neb. 356, 35 N.W. 194; State v. Lewis, 74 Mo. 222.) Evidenc......
-
Walker v. State
...of discretion to deny his motion for a continuance and to force him into trial. 9 Cyc. 188; Id. 96; 71 Ga. 481; 38 Ga. 50; 29 Ga. 271; 80 Ill. 236; 78 Ill. 212; 100 Ky. 194; 34 La.Ann. 100; 1 Bay (S. C.) 1; 53 S.W. 623; 14 Tex.App. 129; 14 Cent. Dig. Tit. "Criminal Law," § 1316; 3 Am. & Eng......
-
Frieze v. the People
...being shown to be material, the court should have granted a continuance, cited Wray v. The People, 78 Ill. 212; Cawley v. The People, 80 Ill. 236; Sprague v. Heaps, 7 Bradwell, 447; Switzer v. Lottenville, 4 Bradwell, 219. As to the practice of making distinct and separate statements of the......
-
Hollywood v. State, 654
...to the assistance of counsel. (State v. Pool, 23 So. 503; Dunn v. People, 109 Ill. 635; Wray v. People, 78 Ill. 212; Conley v. People, 80 Ill. 236; State v. Simpson, 38 La. Ann. 24; State v. Ferris, 16 La. Ann. 425; State v. Brooks, (La.) 1 So. 421.) The record discloses that questions were......
-
State v. Rice
...47 Am. Rep. 822, 17 N.W. 90.) 3. And failure to allow the accused proper time in which to prepare for trial is error. (Conley v. People, 80 Ill. 236; Metts v. State, 29 Ga. 271; State v. Lewis, 1 Bay (S. C.), 1; Newman v. State, 22 Neb. 356, 35 N.W. 194; State v. Lewis, 74 Mo. 222.) Evidenc......
-
Walker v. State
...of discretion to deny his motion for a continuance and to force him into trial. 9 Cyc. 188; Id. 96; 71 Ga. 481; 38 Ga. 50; 29 Ga. 271; 80 Ill. 236; 78 Ill. 212; 100 Ky. 194; 34 La.Ann. 100; 1 Bay (S. C.) 1; 53 S.W. 623; 14 Tex.App. 129; 14 Cent. Dig. Tit. "Criminal Law," § 1316; 3 Am. & Eng......
-
Frieze v. the People
...being shown to be material, the court should have granted a continuance, cited Wray v. The People, 78 Ill. 212; Cawley v. The People, 80 Ill. 236; Sprague v. Heaps, 7 Bradwell, 447; Switzer v. Lottenville, 4 Bradwell, 219. As to the practice of making distinct and separate statements of the......