Hix v. People

CourtSupreme Court of Illinois
Writing for the CourtBAILEY
Citation157 Ill. 382,41 N.E. 862
Decision Date11 October 1895
PartiesHIX v. PEOPLE.

157 Ill. 382
41 N.E. 862

HIX
v.
PEOPLE.1

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 11, 1895.


Error to circuit court, Iroquois county; C. B. Starr, Judge.

Indictment of John Hix for larceny. Defendant was convicted, and he brings error. Reversed.


[157 Ill. 383]

[41 N.E. 863]

Morgan & Orebaugh and C. H. Payson, for plaintiff in error.

M. T. Moloney, Atty. Gen., for the People.


[157 Ill. 384]BAILEY, J.

The defendant was indicted at the November term, 1894, of the circuit court of Iroquois county, for the crime of larceny; the indictment charging him with feloniously stealing, taking, and carrying away one fat hog, of the value of $12, the goods and chattels of Thorn Downey. On trial the jury found the defendant guilty, and fixed his punishment at imprisonment in the penitentiary for the term of one year. Sentence having been pronounced against him in accordance with the verdict, he now brings the record to this court by writ of error.

The first point raised by counsel for the defendant is that the prosecution failed to prove that the hog alleged to have been stolen was the property of Thorn Downey, as charged in the indictment. The prosecuting witness, when on the stand, testified that his name is Thornton J. Downey, but on cross-examination he testified that everybody called him Thorn Downey. While in cases of this character it is essential to a conviction that the name of the person whose property is alleged to have been stolen should be proved as laid in the indictment, it is sufficient to prove that he is well or usually known by the name, although it may not be his true name. We think there was no failure of proof in this respect.

Again, it is claimed that the property stolen is shown by the evidence to have belonged to Downey and one Loveless jointly. If that were a fact, there would be a fatal variance between the indictment and the proof. But we do not think that the evidence shows that the hogs stolen were the joint property of Downey and Loveless. The testimony of Downey tends to show that he and Loveless had made a joint purchase of 75 hogs, but there is no evidence that there was any general partnership in the business of dealing in hogs between them, or that they had any joint interest in any hogs [157 Ill. 385]other than the 75 above mentioned. Downey's testimony tends to show that he alone, and without the consent of Loveless or any conference with him, concluded to buy enough more hogs to make two car loads, with the intention that, if the venture turned out to be profitable, Loveless might share in the profits. The hogs alleged to have been stolen were among those thus purchased by Downey, but there is no evidence that, at the time they were stolen, loveless had assented to their purchase, or that any interest therein...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 practice notes
  • State v. Tipton, No. 26044.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 19, 1925
    ...cited by appellant in support of above contention are as follows: Section 3312, Revised Statutes of Missouri, 1919; Hix v. People, 157 Ill. 382, 41 N. E. 862; State v. Casteel, 53 Mo. 124; State v. Sparks (Mo. Sup.) 177 S. W. 346 [not officially reported]; State v. Richmond, 228 Mo. 362, 12......
  • Starke v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • June 23, 1908
    ...Sims v. State, 9 Tex.App. 586; Benendes v. State, 14 id. 478; Jackson v. State, 15 id. 84; State v. Taylor, 118 Mo. 153; Hix v. People, 157 Ill. 382; State v. McCaskey, 104 Mo. 644; Cady v. State, 4 Tex.App. 238; Lindley v. State, 8 id. 445; Parker v. State, 136 Ind. 284; State v. Bardetta,......
  • State v. Thomas, (No. 5937.)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • March 20, 1928
    ...the language of the statute. This is held to be sufficient when the offense is statutory as in the case here. Hix v. People, 157 111. 382, 41 N. E. 862; State v. Wilson, 157 Iowa, 698, 141 N. W. 698; State v. Lynch. 86 Kan. 528, 12l P. 351; State v. Frank, 103 Mo. 120, 15 S. W. 330; State v......
  • Roberts v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • December 9, 1902
    ...(11 Ency. Pl. & Pr., 185; 2 Thomp. on Trials, Sec. 2330; Proffatt on Jury Trials, 319; 11 Ency. of Law (1st Ed.), 253; Hix v. People, 157 Ill. 382; 41 N. E., 862; Graff v. People (Ill. 1890), 29 N. E., 563.) In instructing the jury that certain facts, if proven, were strong criminating ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
16 cases
  • State v. Tipton, No. 26044.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 19, 1925
    ...cited by appellant in support of above contention are as follows: Section 3312, Revised Statutes of Missouri, 1919; Hix v. People, 157 Ill. 382, 41 N. E. 862; State v. Casteel, 53 Mo. 124; State v. Sparks (Mo. Sup.) 177 S. W. 346 [not officially reported]; State v. Richmond, 228 Mo. 362, 12......
  • Starke v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • June 23, 1908
    ...Sims v. State, 9 Tex.App. 586; Benendes v. State, 14 id. 478; Jackson v. State, 15 id. 84; State v. Taylor, 118 Mo. 153; Hix v. People, 157 Ill. 382; State v. McCaskey, 104 Mo. 644; Cady v. State, 4 Tex.App. 238; Lindley v. State, 8 id. 445; Parker v. State, 136 Ind. 284; State v. Bardetta,......
  • State v. Thomas, (No. 5937.)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • March 20, 1928
    ...the language of the statute. This is held to be sufficient when the offense is statutory as in the case here. Hix v. People, 157 111. 382, 41 N. E. 862; State v. Wilson, 157 Iowa, 698, 141 N. W. 698; State v. Lynch. 86 Kan. 528, 12l P. 351; State v. Frank, 103 Mo. 120, 15 S. W. 330; State v......
  • Roberts v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • December 9, 1902
    ...(11 Ency. Pl. & Pr., 185; 2 Thomp. on Trials, Sec. 2330; Proffatt on Jury Trials, 319; 11 Ency. of Law (1st Ed.), 253; Hix v. People, 157 Ill. 382; 41 N. E., 862; Graff v. People (Ill. 1890), 29 N. E., 563.) In instructing the jury that certain facts, if proven, were strong criminating ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT