Foley v. People
| Decision Date | 31 December 1822 |
| Citation | 1 Ill. 57 |
| Parties | JAMES FOLEY, Plaintiff in Error, v. THE PEOPLE, Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
ERROR TO MADISON.
The words “any other offense which by law shall not be bailable,” as used in the 40th section of the act defining the duties of justices of the supreme court apply, not to the ability of an offender to procure bail, but to the character of the offense.
Larceny is an offense bailable by law.
Consent can not give jurisdiction.
At a special term of the circuit court held in the county of Madison, on the 25th day of November, 1822, an indictment for larceny was found against the said Foley, upon which indictment his conviction accrued.
There are several errors assigned; but the only one which we deem material, is, the objection to the jurisdiction. In ascertaining the jurisdiction, or what is necessary to authorize a special term of the circuit court, we must look to the 40th section of the act entitled “An act regulating and defining the duties of the justices of the supreme court.” By that section it is expressly enacted, “That whenever any person shall be in the custody of the sheriff of any county, charged with any capital offense, or any other offense which by law shall not be bailable, it shall be the duty of the sheriff to give information,” &c. It was contended in the argument, and indeed such is the opinion of Justice REYNOLDS, who tried the cause, that this statute ought to be construed to embrace every case where the prisoner was in custody, and unable to give bail. In consequence of this opinion, and the serious manner with which it was contended for by the counsel, we have given the subject the most mature consideration. In doing so, we have not been able to give to that statute such latitude of construction. The words of the statute are clear, express, unambiguous and admit of no doubtful construction.
The words of the statute are “That whenever any person shall be in the custody of the sheriff of any county, charged with any capital offense, or any other offense which by law shall not be bailable,” &c. Now to ascertain when any offense is bailable, we must look to the law, and it does seem to us to be a perversion of plain language to say that we must look to the fact of the party's ability to procure bail, to ascertain whether by law he is bailable. But it is contended we must be governed by the intention of the legislature. I ask how is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grimes v. Bryne
...Winn, cited in Smith's Com. 874; Bishop's Crim. Law, § 149, and note 7, and cases there cited; Eubanks v. The State, 5 Mo. 450; Foley v. The People, 1 Ill. 57; Minn. & P. R. R. Co. v. Gov. Sibley, ante; also, Bouvier's and Webster's Dict. for the definition of the words, tools, instruments,......
-
Bryan v. Buckmaster
...of the law will not justify; but where the language is plain, and admits of no construction, we must take it as we find it. Foley v. The People, 1 Ill. 57.Where the consequences of a particular construction of a constitution or law would render its operation mischievous, that construction s......