Longford v. People

• Decision Date: 01 November 1890
• Citation: 134 Ill. 444,25 N.E. 1009
• Parties: LONGFORD v. PEOPLE.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

134 Ill. 444

25 N.E. 1009

LONGFORD

v.PEOPLE.¹

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Nov. 1, 1890.

Error to circuit court, Fulton county; JOHN C. BAGBY, Judge.

SHOPE, J., dissenting.

H. W. Masters, H. R. Nortrup, and I. R. Brown, for plaintiff in error.

Geo. Hunt, Atty. Gen., and Kinsey Thomas and T. H. Mehan, State's Attys., for the People.

CARIG, J.

This was an indictment against William W. Longford for burglary and larceny. The first count charged the burglary to have been committed by breaking into a car of the Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis Railroad Company; the second count charged the breaking into a car of the Jacksonville & Southeastern Railroad Company. Upon a trial of the cause, the jury found the defendant guilty of burglary, in manner and form as charged in the indictment, and fixed his punishment in the penitentiary at a term of one year. The court decided the verdict to be applied to the first count of the indictment, and rendered judgment on the verdict.

The first ground of reversal relied upon is that the evidence was not sufficient to establish the guilt of the defendant. The charge against the defendant was that he broke into a car standing on the side track of a certain railroad at Havana, broke open a crate containing 16 pieces of bacon, and stole 8 of the 16 pieces. It appears from the evidence that the car arrived at Havana in the afternoon of June 17th, and was placed on a side track about 300 feet from the residence of the defendant. When the car arrived, the crate contained 16 pieces of becon, which were nailed up in the crate in good order; on the next morning it was found that the car had been broken open, and 8 pieces of the meat taken away. Search was immediately made, and 8 pieces of bacon found in the defendant's cellar. The crate before it was broken open weighed 275 pounds; after the 8 pieces were taken the crate weighed 173 pounds, and the meat found in the defendant's cellar weighed 100 pounds. The meat found in the cellar was in the same condition as it was when stolen from the crate, except a few pounds had been cut off the end of one of the pieces. In addition to finding the meat in the possession of the defendant, grease was found on the sides of the cellar door where it had been taken down the cellar, and the legs of a pair of pants recognized as belonging to the defendant were found to be saturated with grease. The evidence identifying the meat found in the possession of the defendant as the same meat stolen from the car was slight, but that was purely a question of fact for the jury, and we are not prepared to say it was insufficient to authorize the verdict. The defendant did not attempt to show that he owned the meat found in his possession, or that it came into his possession honestly, as he doubtless could have done if such was the fact. Under such circumstances, although the evidence identifying the meat found in defendant's possession as the same meat taken from the crate may be slight, we are not inclined to disturb the finding of the jury.

On behalf of the people, the court instructed the jury, in substance, that possession of stolen property immediately after the theft is evidence which will warrant a conviction, unless overcome by circumstances, or other evidence, and it is insisted that the rule that governs in cases of larceny does not apply in burglary. The same question was raised in Smith v. People, 115 Ill. 17, 3 N....