Howard v. People

• Decision Date: 18 December 1901
• Citation: 193 Ill. 615,61 N.E. 1016
• Parties: HOWARD v. PEOPLE.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

193 Ill. 615

61 N.E. 1016

HOWARD

v.PEOPLE.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 18, 1901.

Error to criminal court, Cook county; Frank Baker, Judge.

Matthew Howard was convicted of robbery, and brings error. Affirmed.

Strohm, Judson & Hitt, for plaintiff in error.

H. J. Hamlin, Atty. Gen., C. S. Deneen, State's Atty., and Harry Olsen, Asst. State's Atty., for the People.

RICKS, J.

At the January term, 1901, of the criminal court of Cook county, plaintiff in error, Matthew Howard, was convicted of the crime of robbery. Motion was entered for a new trial, which was overruled, and now plaintiff in error brings his case to this court.

No errors of law are assigned. In their brief, counsel for plaintiff in error say: ‘There is but one assignment of error, and one question for the court to pass upon: Is the verdict of the jury supported by the evidence?’ But two witnesses testified, and they were both on the part of the people. The prosecuting witness stated that on November 17, 1900, about 9 o'clock p. m., he was on his way to work, carrying under his arm a pair of old work shoes, worth $1.75, wrapped up in paper, and had passed the railroad tracks on Elizabeth street, in Chicago, when he heard some one running behind him on the board sidewalk; that he turned to see who it was, and was struck in the mouth, the blow cutting his lip; that the person who struck him grabbed him by the arm and threw him down; that he caught the man by the leg, and, holding him, hallooed; that the man broke away and ran. He identified plaintiff in error as the man, and stated that in the encounter his shoes were taken, or, as he says, were lost; that he got up and went to a saloon near by, and washed the blood off of his face, and that a few minutes afterwards a policeman brought the defendant in the saloon; that he recognized and identified him, and, when asked by the policeman if he had lost anything, said he had lost a pair of old shoes that he had wrapped in a paper; that the that he had wrapped in a paper; that the were wrapped the same as they were when they were under his arm. Officer Tichart testified that he was a police officer and on duty at the time of the robbery; that his attention was attracted by the hallooing over toward the railroad track, near Elizabeth street, and that he started in that direction; that he saw defendant coming running toward him; that defendant was looking back and did not see him, and that he hid between two cars and waited until defendant came abreast of him, when he grabbed him and searched him; that he took defendant back to where the encounter had taken place; that quite a crowd was collected there; that he then took him to the saloon where the prosecuting witness was, and that Ritchie said, ‘That is the man that struck me;’ that he asked Ritchie if he had lost anything, and that Ritchie replied that he had lost his shoes; that he went back to the railroad track and found the shoes about 75 feet from where the encounter and struggle took place; that they were lying beside the railroad track; and that he delivered them to Ritchie. The foregoing was all the evidence in the case. Plaintiff in error insists that this proof is defective and insufficient, in that it fails to show an intent to rob at the time the assault was made; that it also...