Farrell v. the People.
| Decision Date | 30 June 1855 |
| Citation | 1855 WL 5474,16 Ill. 506,6 Peck 506 |
| Parties | WILLIAM FARRELLv.THE PEOPLE. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
16 Ill. 506
1855 WL 5474 (Ill.)
6 Peck (IL) 506
WILLIAM FARRELL
v.
THE PEOPLE.
Supreme Court of Illinois.
June Term, 1855.
Where a bill is put in the hands of a person to procure change, and he appropriates it, it is larceny.
CITED: 104 Ill. 532.
FARRELL was indicted, tried and convicted of larceny, before R. S. WILSON, at June term, 1855, of the Recorder's Court for the city of Chicago.
The evidence showed that one Hennis, about midnight, gave Farrell, who was a hack driver, a five dollar bill to be changed, in order that Hennis might pay Farrell twenty-five cents which was his charge for carrying Hennis in his hack from the railroad depot to an hotel. Farrell did not return with the bill or the change for it.
J. B. UNDERWOOD, for Plaintiff in Error.
W. H. S. WALLACE, for the People.
SCATES, C. J.
The rule laid down in Denman v. Bloomer, 11 Ill. R. 177, that each instruction must be correct in itself, without reference to others, is the correct one. Tested by this rule, we think, there was no error; each one refused was incorrect, and the modifications were proper. The additional instruction given by the court was proper.
The value of the bill was returned by the jury, as ruled in Highland v. The People, 1 Scam. R. 392.
The defense seemed, from the instructions asked, to be placed upon the ground, that twenty-five cents of the bill belonged to plaintiff, and therefore the indictment could not be sustained. Is this true in fact or law?
As regards the fact, the jury have said it is not true, and we are not called upon to review the proofs upon that finding.
We sustained a verdict in a similar case, upon proofs of a more doubtful character, in Fishback v. Brown, 16 Ill. R. 74, as to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reed v. Baggott
... ... Bloomer, 11 Ill. 177; C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Lee, 60 Ill. 501; Coughlin v. The People, 18 Ill. 266; Farrell v. The People, 16 Ill. 506.Where the evidence is evenly balanced, the instructions should state the law accurately: T. W. & W ... ...
-
Rice v. United States
... ... 2 The two cases illustrating this rule, and most closely in point, are Finkelstein v. State, 105 Ga. 617, 31 S.E. 589, and Farrell v. People, 16 Ill. 506. The same conclusion has been reached in numerous similar cases. 3 Appellant argues that the element of trick or design ... ...
-
Bergman v. People
... ... Farrell v. People, 16 Ill. 506;Welsh v. People, 17 Ill. 339;Stinson v. People, 43 Ill. 397;Murphy v. People, 104 Ill. 528;Doss v. People, 158 Ill. 660, 41 N. E. 1093.We need not advert to alleged errors in the instructions. The criticisms urged are to points of monor importance. The law, and facts proven ... ...
-
Finkelstein v. State
... ... People, 56 N. Y. 304, is a case so exactly in point that we quote its entire headnote: "Upon the trial of an indictment for larceny, it appeared that ... People, 90 N. Y. 12; Farrell v. People, 16 Ill. 506; Walters v. State, 17 Tex. App. 226; Com. v. Barry, 124 Mass. 325; Murphy v. People, 104 Ill. 528. See, also, 46 Cent ... ...