Mcmahon v. People
Citation | 120 Ill. 581,11 N.E. 883 |
Parties | McMAHON v. PEOPLE. |
Decision Date | 12 May 1887 |
Court | Supreme 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.
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: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Dahms
......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
...... 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.
...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
......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 ......