Farley v. People
| Citation | 27 N.E. 927,138 Ill. 97 |
| Parties | FARLEY et al. v. PEOPLE. |
| Decision Date | 15 June 1891 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to criminal court of Cook county; R. S. TUTHILL, Judge.
Dineen & McEwen, for plaintiffs in error.
At the January term of the criminal court of Cook county, 1891, plaintiffs in error were jointly tried for the crime of grand larceny, and both found guilty; the punishment of Farleybeing fixed at one year, and that of O'Brien at three years, in the penitentiary. Two of the counts in the indictment charge the defendant O'Brien with a former conviction of the same crime, and an effort was made to convict her under the ‘habitual criminal act’ of this state. It appears from the evidence that on the 25th day of August, 1890, Mrs. Martha Rhode was passing along State street in Chicago, when Nelly O'Brien stepped on the skirt of her dress. She said, ‘Excuse me,’ and passed to the left of Annie Rhode, a 15-year-old daughter, walking with her mother, and soon after, while in sight of Mrs. Rhode and the daughter, met the defendant Annie Farley, to whom the daughter testified she saw her give ‘something black.’ Almost immediately after this Mrs. Rhode discovered that a pocket-book containing a $20 bill, a $2 bill, and some small change, which she carried in her dress-pocket, was missing, and at once reported the loss to a policeman. That afternoon the defendants were arrested, being still together, and taken to the Central station, where, upon being searched, there was found upon the person of Annie Farley a pocket-book containing a $20 bill, three $2 bills, and some change. This pocket-book was shown to belong to Miss Farley. Nothing was found in the possession of O'Brien corresponding to the missing pocket-book or money of Mrs. Rhode. A witness named Reed testified that, being in front of a basement on State street about 12 or 1 o'clock on the day mentioned, an empty pocket-book came through the grating from the sidewalk, and fell in the basement. This he produced on the trial, and it was identified by Mrs. Rhode as the one lost by her, containing the money above described. The evidence tends to show that the defendants passed over the basement in which this pocket-book was found about the time Reed discovered it. The charge in the indictment is the larceny of a $20 bill belonging to Mrs. Rhode, and the theory of the prosecution on the trial was that the $20 bill found in the pocket-book of Miss Farley at the station was the identical bill of that denomination in the pocket-book of Mrs. Rhode when she missed it. The evidence offered on behalf of the people for the purpose of establishing this identification is very conflicting, and, to say the least, unsatisfactory; and, as the case must be again tried, we refrain from discussing it. The defendants both testified on the trial, and positively denied that they took or had any knowledge of the taking of Mrs. Rhode's money.
It appears from the record that after the trial had been completed, and the jury sent out to consider of its verdict, ‘the court directed, with the consent of defendants, given in open court, that the jury be permitted to seal their verdict when arrived at, and return the same into court at the opening of the session of the day following.’ Also that the same afternoon the jury separated, and went to their respective homes, returning into open court the next morning, and producing what they intended as a sealed verdict of ‘guilty’ as to both defendants. This verdict failed to fix any term of imprisonment for the defendant Nelly O'Brien. Thereupon the court directed them to again retire, and complete their verdict; but the defendants objected, and, their objection being overruled, they duly excepted. Having again retired, after some delay they brought in a second verdict, finding the defendants guilty as before, and fixing the punishment. To the recording of this verdict exceptions were taken. Also motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment were made, and overruled, and judgment of sentence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Taylor v. State
-
Koch v. State
...or amended in matter of substance after it has been agreed upon, signed and sealed, and the jury has separated. Farley et al. v. People, 138 Ill. 97, 27 N. E. 927, in a trial on charge of larceny, the court, with the consent of defendants' counsel, given in open court, directed that the jur......
-
Keith v. State
... ... bystanders, preclude recalling them. Sargent v ... State, 11 Ohio, 472; Mills v. Commonwealth, 34 ... Va. 751; People v. Lee Yune Chong, 94 Cal. 379, 29 ... P. 776; State v. Dawkins, 32 S.C. 17, 10 S.E. 772; ... Allen v. State, 85 Wis. 22, 54 N.W. 999. And see ... case who have rendered an incomplete sealed verdict during ... the night, and have been allowed to separate, see Farley ... v. People, 138 Ill. 97, 27 N.E. 927. ***' The ... written verdict of the jury must control. If it had been read ... to them before their ... ...
-
People v. Davis
... ... In none of the cases in which the jury had been sent back to correct an error, generally of a mechanical nature, had the trial court entered judgment nor had the jury separated ... Contrariwise, in Farley v. People (1891), 138 Ill. 97, 27 N.E. 927, the jury had sealed its verdict and returned the following day. On examination of the verdict it was discovered that the jury had not fixed the term of imprisonment for one of the defendants. Over defense objection the trial court sent the jury back to ... ...