People v. Ashbrook

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: DUNN
• Citation: People v. Ashbrook, 276 Ill. 382, 114 N.E. 922 (Ill. 1917)
• Decision Date: 07 February 1917
• Docket Number: No. 10894.,10894.
• Parties: PEOPLE v. ASHBROOK.

276 Ill. 382

114 N.E. 922

PEOPLE

v.ASHBROOK.

No. 10894.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 21, 1916.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 7, 1917.

Error to Circuit Court, Champaign County; Franklin H. Boggs, Judge.

Charles Ashbrook was convicted of perjury, and he brings error. Affirmed.

F. M. Green and Green & Palmer, all of Urbana, and Charles F. Mansfield, of Monticello, for plaintiff in error.

P. J. Lucey, Atty. Gen., Louis A. Busch, State's Atty., of Champaign, and George P. Ramsey, of Springfield, for the People.

DUNN, J.

Charles Ashbrook was convicted of perjury in the circuit court of Champaign county, and seeks a reversal of the judgment for error of the court in overruling his motion in arrest of judgment on the ground of the insufficiency of the indictment.

The indictment consisted of two counts. The objections made to it are that neither count describes the character of the offense charged in the proceedings in which the alleged false testimony was given or the nature of such proceedings; that there is no averment that the alleged false testimony was material to the point in issue in those proceedings, and no showing on the face of the indictment that the alleged false testimony was material to the point in issue; that there is no averment that the false statements were made feloniously, or that the defendant knew they were false; that the second count states that the former proceeding was tried before the court, but does not state that a jury was waived, or whether the charge was a felony or a misdemeanor.

The second count of the indictment alleges that:

‘Charles Ashbrook, late of said county, on the 8th day of February, in the year of our Lord 1916, at and within the said county of Champaign and state of Illinois aforesaid, being the defendant in a certain proceeding entitled the ‘People of the State of Illinois against Charles Ashbrook,’ which was a proceeding charging the defendant, Charles Ashbrook, with the unlawful and illegal sale of intoxicating liquor at and within the limits of the town of Champaign, in Champaign county, Ill., which said proceeding was pending and was heard in the circuit court of Champaign county, Ill., on the 8th day of February, in the year of our Lord 1916, the same being one of the regular judicial days of the circuit court of Champaign county, Ill., said court having lawful authority to try said cause and having jurisdiction of the parties to said cause, and upon the hearing of said cause, wherein the people of the state of Illinois was plaintiff and Charles Ashbrook was defendant, it became and was a material matter in issue in said cause as to whether or not the said Charles Ashbrook, said defendant as aforesaid, had sold any beer, wine, or whisky or any intoxicating liquor at and within the limits of the town of Champaign, in Champaign county, Ill., at any time within 18 months prior to the 27th day of January, in the year of our Lord 1916,' etc.

The purpose of describing in the indictment the proceeding in which the perjury was committed is to show that it was a judicial proceeding of which the court had jurisdiction, and that the false testimony was material. A general description of the proceeding is sufficient, and it need not be set out in detail. The indictment shows that the defendant was charged in that proceeding with the illegal sale of intoxicating liquors in the town of Champaign, and it was not necessary to set out the charge in that case with any greater particularity. There are various misdemeanors created by the statute to which this description may apply, but it is not necessary to set out which particular section of the statute was charged to have been violated in order to advise defendant of the nature of the charge of perjury against him. The circuit court has jurisdiction of all misdemeanors, and therefore had jurisdiction of this charge. It had jurisdiction to try the defendant for a misdemeanor without a jury, and its jurisdiction was not affected whether a jury was waived or not. If the defendant was tried by the court without a jury having been waived, as provided in the statute, and convicted of the misdemeanor charged, his conviction was erroneous, but not void, and if there was corrupt and willful false swearing in a matter material to the point in issue on such trial, it was perjury.

It is...