Parris v. People of State
| Decision Date | 31 January 1875 |
| Citation | 76 Ill. 274,1875 WL 8188 |
| Parties | WILLIAM PARRIS et al.v.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Champaign county; the Hon. C. B. SMITH, Judge, presiding.
This was an information in the county court of Champaign county, against William Parris, Isaac Jones, John Parris, George Parris, and Walker Richards. The following is a copy of the information:
+--------------------------+
¦“STATE OF ILLINOIS, ¦)¦ ¦
+--------------------+-+---¦
¦ ¦)¦SS.¦
+--------------------+-+---¦
¦Champaign County. ¦)¦ ¦
+--------------------------+
The complaint and information of Albert Coons, of Ogden township, in said county, made before the Hon. A. M. Ayres, judge of the county court in and for said county, on the 10th day of October, 1873, at Ogden township, in the said county, the criminal offense of malicious mischief, destroying and causing to be destroyed a part of twelve acres of wheat, the same being the property of Albert Coons, and unlawfully and maliciously, and for mischief, shooting and wounding a certain dog, the same being the property of Albert Coons, was committed, and he has just and reasonable grounds to suspect that William Parris, Isaac Jones, John Parris, George Parris and Walker Richards committed the same; he therefore prays that the said William Parris, etc., may be arrested and dealt with according to law.
ALBERT COONS.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 10th day of October, 1873.
J. W. SHUCK,
Clerk of the County Court.”
A trial was had in the county court, where the defendants were found guilty, and fined each $3. They appealed to the circuit court, where the judgment of the county court was affirmed.
Messrs. CUNNINGHAM & WEBBER, for the plaintiffs in error.
The record shows that plaintiffs in error were prosecuted in the county court for malicious mischief. The information charges, that “on the 10th day of October, 1873, at Ogden township, in said county, the criminal offense of malicious mischief, destroying and causing to be destroyed a part of twelve acres of wheat, the same being the property of Albert Coons, and unlawfully and maliciously, and for mischief, shooting and wounding a certain dog, the same being the property of Albert Coons, was committed, and that he has just and reasonable grounds to suspect that William Parris, Isaac Jones, John Parris, George Parris and Walker Richards committed the same.”
When the statute dispensed with an indictment in the county court, and substituted an information, it was not designed to dispense with all the previous requirements of the law. The accused is still entitled to be informed of the offense with which he is charged, and not only so, but with the same certainty as is required in an indictment. The accused should be positively charged with the commission of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. State
...... trial in violation of that agreement. State v. Graham, 41 N.J.L. 15, 32 Am.Rep. 174; People v. Peter, 48 Cal. [250] 251; People v. Bruzzo, 24. Cla. 41; United States v. Ford, 99 U.S. 594, 25. L.Ed. 399; Linsday v. People, 63 N.Y. 143;. ... offense to have been committed on July 18, 1909. The same. certainty of allegation is required in an information as in. an indictment. Parris v. People, 76 Ill. 274; [134. Fla. 401] Gould v. People, 89 Ill. 216. At common. law an indictment must charge the offense to have been. committed ......
-
City of Chicago v. Mcculloch
...... of the defendant, was permitted to prove that the parents of the deceased were laboring people, not able to keep a nurse, and had no one to care for the smaller children except the mother; that ......
-
People v. Reed
......607] [122 N.E. 807]William R. Fetzer, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.Edward J. Brundage, Atty. Gen., Maclay Hoyne, State's Atty., of Chicago, and Sumner S. Anderson, of Charleston (Edward E. Wilson, of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.CARTWRIGHT, ... upon information and belief. The prosecution upon such an information is in contravention of section 9 of the Bill of Rights (Parris v. People, 76 Ill. 274;People v. Clark, 280 Ill. 160, 117 N. E. 432); but, if the verification had been upon information and belief, the ......
-
People v. Elias
......Murphy, of Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff in error. Edward J. Brundage and Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attys. Gen., C. W. Reed, State's Atty., of Naperville, George C. Dixon, of Dixon, and Charles F. Mansfield, of Monticello, for the People. THOMPSON, J. The ...383]People v. Shockley, 311 Ill. 255, 142 N. E. 481;People v. Clark, 280 Ill. 160, 117 N. E. 432;Parris v. People, 76 Ill. 274, nor the issuance of a warrant for [147 N.E. 475] the seizure of property (Lippman v. People, supra). The ......