Mcmahon v. People

Citation120 Ill. 581,11 N.E. 883
PartiesMcMAHON v. PEOPLE.
Decision Date12 May 1887
CourtSupreme Court of Illinois

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Error to criminal court, Cook county.

W. D. Munhall, for McMahon, plaintiff in error.

Julius S. Grinnell and Geo. Hunt, for the People, defendants in error.

CRAIG, J.

This was an indictment against Michael McMahon for larceny, and, on a trial in the criminal court of Cook county, the defendant was found guilty, and his term of imprisonment in the state prison fixed at 18 months. Several errors have been assigned in the record, but the main ground relied upon to reverse the judgment is that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the judgment. The charge against the defendant is that on a certain day in the month of August, 1886, he stole a suit of clothes from the home of Adam Jaeger, who resided at 701 South Halstead street, Chicago. At the time of the alleged larceny, the defendant was in the employment of Wheeler & Thompson, a firm engaged in the roofing business, being foreman of a gang of five men, who were sent to the residence of Adam Jaeger to do a job of work on the house. It is claimed that, on leaving the house after the work was finished, the defendant took and carried away the suit of clothes wrapped up in an old coat. The evidence relied upon to sustain the conviction is that of John Harlig, a carpenter who was at work on the house at the same time. He testified that the man came there to work on the house about 2 o'clock in the afternoon, and worked about one hour; that he met the defendant and another man coming down stairs at Jaeger's home about 3 o'clock that day; the other man had gone, the defendant had a big bundle under his arm in an old coat. He further testified that he saw the defendant place the bundle on the seat of a wagon which they had with them, and he and the other man got on the seat of the wagon, and drove off. A few minutes after the men had gone, Mrs. Jaeger notified the witness that a suit of clothes belonging to her husband was missing. The witness then went to Mr. Wheeler, the employer of the men, and notified him of what had occurred. Wheeler and the witness went to Chicago avenue, where the men were engaged on another job, and found a bundle containing the suit of clothes on the wagon-seat.

To rebut this evidence, the defendant introduced Judson Jones, who, in substance, testified: ‘I am a roofer, and work for Wheeler & Thompson, and worked for them last August. I was at work with the defendant on the day he did the work at Jaeger's house, on South Halstead street. Besides the defendant and myself, there were three other men working with us,-Charles Linstrum, Fred Frutel, and Frank Limberg. It took us about an hour to do the work. I was with the defendant part of the time. Linstrum and Frutel went down from the roof some time before the defendant and myself. The defendant told me to get his tape-line, which was in his coat pocket. I called to Frank Limberg below to sent me Mike's coat. He placed the coat on the bucket by which we hauled up material for roofing. I hauled it up, and took from the pocket on the inside of the coat the tape-line, and he and I measured the work we had done. After he had taken the measurement, he put the tape-line in the pocket of his coat, and put his coat and vest on his arm, and he and I started down. We went in through the window and attic-room, and down the stairs from the inside of the house. This was the only way down. I was right behind him all the way, not more than two feet from...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • State v. Dahms
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • November 25, 1914
    ......Co. v. Gray, 80 Ill. 31; 3 Brickwood's. Sackett, Instructions to Juries, §§ 3380 et seq.;. Evans v. George, 80 Ill. 51; McMahon v. People, 120 Ill. 584, 11 N.E. 883; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Roberts, 35 Colo. 498, 84 P. 68; Underhill. v. Chicago & G. T. R. Co. 81 ......
  • State v. Tomlinson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 7, 1944
    ...... State is not entitled to go to the jury. State v. Duncan,. supra; State v. Marquardson, 7 Idaho, 352, 62 P. 1034; McMahon v. People, 120 Ill. 581, 11 N.E. 883;. Foresythe v. State, 20 S.W. 371. . .          Roy. McKittrick, Attorney General, and L. I. ......
  • State v. Tomlinson, 38706.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 7, 1944
    ...the State is not entitled to go to the jury. State v. Duncan, supra; State v. Marquardson, 7 Idaho, 352, 62 Pac. 1034; McMahon v. People, 120 Ill. 581, 11 N.E. 883; Foresythe v. State, 20 S.W. 371. Roy McKittrick, Attorney General, and L.I. Morris, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent......
  • Watts v. People
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • October 26, 1903
    ......143, 28 N. E. 1083,32 Am. St. Rep. 196;Lamb v. People, 96 Ill. 73.         Where the evidence fails to sustain a conviction in a criminal case, the judgment will be reversed. Miller v. People, 90 Ill. 409;Randall v. People, 63 Ill. 202;Gutchins v. People, 21 Ill. 641;McMahon v. People, 120 Ill. 581, 11 N. E. 883;Clark v. People, 111 Ill. 404.         [204 Ill. 239]Section 239 of division 1 of the Criminal Code provides as follows: ‘Every person who, for his own gain, or to prevent the owner from again possessing his property, shall buy, receive or aid in ......
  • 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