May v. People of State

Decision Date30 September 1871
Citation1871 WL 8094,60 Ill. 119
PartiesJOSEPH MAYv.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

WRIT OF ERROR to the Criminal Court of Cook county; the Hon. JOHN A. JAMESON, Judge, presiding.

Mr. JOHN LYLE KING, for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. WASHINGTON BUSHNELL, Attorney General, and Mr. CHARLES H. REED, State's Attorney, for the people.

Per CURIAM:

This was an indictment for receiving stolen goods, knowing them to have been stolen. In order to a conviction, it was necessary for the prosecution to satisfy the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew the goods had been stolen at the time he received them. A reasonable doubt is one arising from a candid and impartial investigation of all the evidence, and such as, in the graver transactions of life, would cause a reasonable and prudent man to hesitate and pause. Miller v. The People, 39 Ill. 457.

The goods were stolen on the 15th of May, 1870. The evidence of DeYoung, who was in the employ of the accused at the time the latter received the goods in pawn, gives a full account of the time and manner of receiving them, and if his statement is true, it repels any presumption of guilty knowledge.

The only evidence to countervail the effect of DeYoung's testimony consists in the statements of a policeman as to the time of issuing a warrant, and a remark made by the accused that he brought the clock with him from State street, and had had it some time. It appears that the accused had two clocks about which inquiries had been made--one a bronze clock and the other marble. The former was the one in question. DeYoung testifies that it was the marble clock that the accused said he brought from State street. But the policeman applies the remark to the bronze clock, in which he might easily have been mistaken. The effect of the evidence of the officer as to this account of where accused got the clock, must have been the principal evidence upon which the jury relied, and yet it rested upon such a foundation as would, in the graver transactions of life, cause a reasonable and prudent man to hesitate and pause.

The only other circumstance to overthrow DeYoung's evidence is the statement of the policeman as to when the warrant was issued. He was testifying months after the event, and yet he undertakes to state the time of issuing the warrant, without its being produced, or the witness having recently ascertained the time by any reference to the record...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Spies v. People (In re Anarchists)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • September 14, 1887
    ......They at once moved upon the crowd. As they advanced, the word ‘blood-hounds,’ and exhortations to the mob to ‘do their duty,’ were heard from the direction of the wagon. Those in charge of the police ordered the crowd, ‘in the name of the people of the state of Illinois, quietly and peaceably to disperse.’ Fielden replied, as he was stepping down from the wagon: ‘We are peaceable.’ Whether the expression had reference to the signal ‘Ruhe!’ (otherwise ‘Peace!’) or was an honest declaration that the speaker believed that the intention of ......
  • People v. Tielke
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • June 18, 1913
    ...259 Ill. 88102 N.E. 229PEOPLEv.TIELKE.Supreme Court of Illinois.June 18, 1913.         Error to Circuit Court, Stephenson County; Richard S. Farrand, Judge.        Action by the People of the state of Illinois against David Tielke for burglary. Defendant convicted, and he appeals. Judgment affirmed.[259 Ill. 89]        [102 N.E. 230]Pattison & Shaw, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.P. J. Lucey, Atty. Gen., Albert H. Manus, State's Atty., of Freeport, and George P. Ramsey, of Mount ......
  • People v. Rubin
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • October 22, 1935
    ......        Reversed and remanded.         STONE, C. J., and JONES and WILSON, JJ., dissenting. [361 Ill. 312]         [197 N.E. 863] Wm. Scott Stewart, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error. Otto Kerner, Atty. Gen., Thomas J. Courtney, State's Atty., of Chicago, A. B. Dennis, of Danville, and J. J. Neiger, of Springfield (Edward E. Wilson, Henry E. Seyfarth, and Martin Ward, all of Chicago, of counsel), for the People. HERRICK, Justice.         The plaintiff in error, Abe Rubin (hereinafter called the defendant), was indicted ......
  • Willis v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • December 5, 1894
    ......[Wash.], . 873; Commonwealth v. Miller, 139 Pa. St., 77.). . .          The. court erred in giving the fifteenth instruction on its own. motion. It is erroneous to give an instruction which is more. in the nature of an argument than a statement of the law. ( Dunn v. People, 109 Ill. 635; Ludwig v. Sager, 84 Ill. 99; State v. Orr, 64 Mo. 339;. Morris v. Lachman, 8 P. [Cal.], 799.). . .          The. sixteenth instruction was erroneous in omitting the question. of malice. ( People v. Sweeney, 55 Mich. 586;. McClaine v. Territory, 25 P. [Wash.], ......
  • 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