Lamb v. People

• Decision Date: 20 December 1905
• Citation: 76 N.E. 576,219 Ill. 399
• Parties: LAMB v. PEOPLE.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

219 Ill. 399

76 N.E. 576

LAMB

v.PEOPLE.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 20, 1905.

Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Frank Baker, Judge.

Charles C. Lamb was convicted of murder, and brings error.Affirmed.

Rehearing denied February 20, 1906.Charles C. Lamb, the plaintiff in error, was indicted at the December term, 1899, of the criminal court of Cook county for the crime of murder.Upon a trial he was by the verdict of a jury found guilty of that crime, and his punishment was fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for the term of his natural life.After overruling a motion for a new trial and a motion in arrest of judgment, the court pronounced judgment upon the verdict and sentenced the plaintiff in error to confinement and hard labor in the penitentiary at Joliet for the term of his natural life.The plaintiff in error has sued out this writ of error to review the record of the criminal court.No bill of exceptions was preserved.

Myer S. Emrich, for plaintiff in error.

William H. Stead, Atty. Gen., John J. Healy, State's Atty., and F. L. Barnett, for the People.

SCOTT, J.

First.The record of the impaneling of the grand jury shows that Davey S. Pate was appointed foreman of that body.The indictment returned in open court is indorsed ‘A true bill’ by ‘David S. Pate, Foreman of the Grand Jury,’ and the record recites that the indictment, so indorsed, was by the grand jury presented in open court, and it is urged that neither the foreman nor any member of the grand jury indorsed the indictment, so far as appears from the record.We do not think there is any variance between the names ‘Davey S. Pate’ and ‘David S. Pate,’ as ‘Davey’ is a diminutive or nickname for ‘David.’Kerr v. Swallow, 33 Ill. 379;Walter v. State, 105 Ind. 589, 5 N. E. 735.

Second.The placita of the court record for the day upon which the motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment were disposed of shows that the judge of the court, the sheriff of the county, and the state's attorney were present.These facts were attested by William C. Lawson as clerk, as appears from the record of that day, when in fact Patrick J. Cahill was clerk of the court.In Yates v. People, 38 Ill. 527, it was held that it was not necessary that the record should show the ‘organization of the court,’ if by that phrase is meant the names and presence of its various officers, and that the only thing that was important was that it should appear from the transcript that the court was actually in session, and that its proceedings should be shown from its record by the certificate of its clerk under his official seal.We are of opinion that if Cahill was not present, by himself or deputy, and plaintiff in error desired to avail himself of that fact, such absence should have been made to appear affirmatively by a bill of exceptions.

Third.It is urged that ‘Lamb had no opportunity to be heard why sentence should not be pronounced upon him, according to the requirements of the common law.’The record of the court in this regard reads as follows: ‘And now neither the said defendant nor his counsel for him saying anything further why the judgment of the court should not now be pronounced against him on the verdict of guilty, heretofore...