Graham v. People

• Decision Date: 25 January 1886
• Parties: GRAHAM v. PEOPLE.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

115 Ill. 566

4 N.E. 790

GRAHAM

v.PEOPLE.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Filed January 25, 1886.

Error to criminal court, Cook county.

Snowhook, Johnson & Gray, for appellant.

George Hunt, Atty. Gen., for the People.

TUNNICLIFF, J.

The plaintiffs in error, Robert Graham and Hugh McCue, were convicted in the criminal court of Cook county of the crime of robbing the prosecutor of his watch. On the trial the following question was asked the prosecuting witness, viz.: Question. ‘Have you been approached by anybody in the interest of these defendants, and have you taken any money to settle this case?’ to which he made the following answer: Answer. ‘Yes, sir; I took $25 from Mr. Hemingway, the uncle of Graham, in payment of my watch, as I supposed. The watch was not mine. It belonged to another man, who left it with me as security for a bill, and I was wearing it that night. He sent for me, and wanted to settle the case.’ Counsel for plaintiffs in error urge that this evidence was incompetent, and calculated to prejudice their clients with the jury. In this we fully agree with them; but an examination of the record discloses that there was no objection made or exception taken to its introduction. On the contrary, counsel cross-examined the witness concerning the same matter, and also introduced other testimony on behalf of plaintiffs in error in regard thereto. But, having failed to make any objection, and thereby obtain a ruling of the court as to the admissibility of the testimony, and take an exception to its decision if adverse to them, we are precluded from examining the question. Had objection been made, the court would have doubtless excluded it. As was said by this court in McKinney v. People, 2 Gilman, 556:

‘A prisoner on trial, under our laws, has no right to stand by and suffer irregular proceedings to take place, and then ask to have the proceedings reversed on error on account of such irregularities. The law, by furnishing him with counsel to defend him, has placed him on the same platform with all other defendants; and if he neglects in proper time to insist on his rights, he waives them.’

To the same effect is Bulliner v. People, 95 Ill. 394, and Perteet v. People, 70 Ill. 171.

The judgment is also asked to be reversed because, as is claimed, the jury found contrary to the evidence. We have examined the evidence carefully, and are unable to say that the jury were not authorized to find the verdict they did. The only question regarded the identity of the prisoners, the plaintiffs in error. The prosecuting witness had known one of them personally for eight or ten years, and the other all of the preceding winter. He swears positively to them being the persons who robbed him, and is confirmed by other testimony in the case. Against this plaintiffs in error swear, on their own behalf, to their innocence, and offer evidence of their relatives and friends to prove an alibi. It was the peculiar province of the jury to weigh and consider the evidence, and judge, from the appearance of the witnesses on the...