Hunter v. People of State
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | SMITH |
| Citation | 1 Scam. 453,1838 WL 2549,2 Ill. 453 |
| Decision Date | 31 December 1838 |
| Parties | WILLIAM HUNTER, BARTHOLOMEW WHALEN, and JAMES WHALEN, plaintiffs in error,v.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, defendants in error. |
1 Scam. 453
2 Ill. 453
1838 WL 2549 (Ill.)
WILLIAM HUNTER, BARTHOLOMEW WHALEN, and JAMES WHALEN, plaintiffs in error,
v.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, defendants in error.
Supreme Court of Illinois.
December Term, 1838. @#[454]#@
O. B. FICKLIN, for the plaintiffs in error.A. C. FRENCH, State's Attorney, for the defendants in error.
SMITH, Justice, delivered the opinion of the Court:
This case is submitted on the following agreed state of facts.
The defendants were jointly indicted at the April term of the Circuit Court of Edgar county, 1837, for a riot. At the September term of the same year, Andrew Hunter, one of the defendants, applied for a change of venue for himself only, which was ordered and the indictment, together with the other papers in the cause, were transmitted to the Clark Circuit Court, where Andrew Hunter was tried at the November term, 1837. After the trial in the Clark Circuit Court, the same indictment on which Andrew Hunter was tried was brought back to the Edgar Circuit Court, without any order of the Court therefor; and William Hunter, Bartholomew Whalen and James Whalen were called to plead to the indictment. It is now submitted by the attorney for the People, and the counsel for the defendants, who did not join in the change of venue, whether or not the Circuit Court of Edgar county was ousted of its jurisdiction over them, by the change of venue to Clark Circuit Court.
In the case of Clark v. The People, decided in this Court in 1833, (2 ILl. 117,) it is said, “It is argued that if the venue should be changed on the application of one of several defendants indicted jointly, that it would be difficult if not impossible to try the others, as the indictment would have to be sent to the adjoining county with the accused.” The only point decided in that case was, the right of one of several defendants indicted jointly, to a change of venue, which the Circuit Court had refused; which judgment was reversed.
It is not to be disguised that the act allowing a change of venue, in regard to criminal offenses, is extremely defective; and particularly as to the disposition which shall be made of the other defendants, after a change of venue, and trial shall have been had as to one or more of them. No provision is made for the disposition of the indictment by the Court to which it is transmitted, after the change of venue is awarded, and its final action has been had on the party who sought the change. The policy of the act, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shular v. The State, 12,606
...application. State v. Carothers, 1 Greene, Iowa, 464; State v. Martin, 2 Iredell, 101; State v. Wetherford, 25 Mo. 439; Hunter v. People, 1 Scam. 453; John v. State, 2 Ala. 290; 1 Bishop Crim. Proced., section 75: Wharton Crim. Pl. and Pr. (8th ed.), sec. 602. In Brown v. State, 18 Ohio St.......
-
Shular v. State
...upon his application. State v. Carothers, 1 G. Greene, 464;State v. Martin, 2 Ired. 101;State v. Wetherford, 25 Mo. 439;Hunter v. People, 1 Scam. 453;State v. John, 2 Ala. 290; 1 Bish. Crim. Law, § 75; Whart. Crim. Pl. & Pr. (8th. Ed.) 602. In Brown v. State, 18 Ohio St. 496, it was hel......
-
Linn v. Buckingham
...because the entitling of the cause does not state it to be in any Court, it can not relate to the action described in the declaration; [2 Ill. 453]and that therefore the bond is not in conformity to the law. We do not perceive the force of the objection. On the contrary, it would be doing v......
-
Shular v. The State, 12,606
...application. State v. Carothers, 1 Greene, Iowa, 464; State v. Martin, 2 Iredell, 101; State v. Wetherford, 25 Mo. 439; Hunter v. People, 1 Scam. 453; John v. State, 2 Ala. 290; 1 Bishop Crim. Proced., section 75: Wharton Crim. Pl. and Pr. (8th ed.), sec. 602. In Brown v. State, 18 Ohio St.......
-
Shular v. State
...upon his application. State v. Carothers, 1 G. Greene, 464;State v. Martin, 2 Ired. 101;State v. Wetherford, 25 Mo. 439;Hunter v. People, 1 Scam. 453;State v. John, 2 Ala. 290; 1 Bish. Crim. Law, § 75; Whart. Crim. Pl. & Pr. (8th. Ed.) 602. In Brown v. State, 18 Ohio St. 496, it was hel......
-
Linn v. Buckingham
...because the entitling of the cause does not state it to be in any Court, it can not relate to the action described in the declaration; [2 Ill. 453]and that therefore the bond is not in conformity to the law. We do not perceive the force of the objection. On the contrary, it would be doing v......