People v. Hagenow

CourtSupreme Court of Illinois
Citation86 N.E. 370,236 Ill. 514
Decision Date03 December 1908
PartiesPEOPLE v. HAGENOW.

236 Ill. 514
86 N.E. 370

PEOPLE
v.
HAGENOW.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 26, 1908.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 3, 1908.


Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; A. H. Chetlain, Judge.

Lucy Hagenow was convicted of murder by performing an abortion upon a woman, causing her death, and brings error. Affirmed.


[236 Ill. 515]

[86 N.E. 371]

John C. King, Joseph R. Burres, and James D. Power, for plaintiff in error.

236 Ill. 516]W. H. Stead, Atty. Gen., and John J. Healy, State's Atty. (James J. Barbour, of counsel), for the People.
[236 Ill. 517]HAND, J.

The grand jury of Cook county on the 22d day of November, 1907, returned into the criminal court of Cook county an indictment against the plaintiff in error charging her with having caused the miscarriage of, or produced an abortion upon, Annie Horvatich, a woman pregnant with child, on the 4th day of May, 1907, and thereby causing her death. The plaintiff in error was arrested, and, having pleaded not guilty, was put upon trial before a jury and was convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary for the period of 20 years, and she has sued out this writ of error to review said judgment.

The indictment contained four counts. The first count, omitting the formal part, charged ‘that one Lucy Hagenow, otherwise called Louise Hagenow, otherwise called Ida Von Schultz, late of the county of Cook, on the fourth day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and seven, in said county of Cook, in the state of Illinois aforesaid, in and upon the body of one Annie Horvatich, in the peace of the people of the said state of Illinois then and there being, unlawfully, feloniously, willfully, and of her malice aforethought, did make an assault, and that the said Lucy Hagenow a certain instrument, a more particular description of which is to the jurors unknown, which she, the said Lucy Hagenow, in the hand of her, the said Lucy Hagenow, then and there had and held, then and there unlawfully, feloniously, willfully, and of her malice aforethought did force, thrust, and insert into the private parts and womb of her, the said Annie Horvatich, she, the [236 Ill. 518]said Annie Horvatich, then and there being a woman then and there pregnant with child, with intent then and there to produce the miscarriage of her, the said Annie Horvatich, and that she, the said

[86 N.E. 372

Lucy Hagenow, then and there by the said forcing, thrusting and inserting the said instrument, as aforesaid, into the private parts and womb of the said Annie Horvatich, unlawfully, feloniously, willfully, and of her malice aforethought, caused the miscarriage of her, the said Annie Horvatich, it not being then and there necessary to so then and there cause such miscarriage for the preservation of the life of her, the said Annie Horvatich, as she, the said Lucy Hagenow, then well knew, she, the said Lucy Hagenow, then and there well knowing that the use of said instrument as aforesaid, at the time aforesaid, in the manner aforesaid, would then and there produce such miscarriage; that by reason of said miscarriage in the manner and at the time aforesaid, the said Annie Horvatich, from the said fourth day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and seven, until afterwards, to wit, the sixth day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand, nine hundred and seven, in the county of Cook and state of Illinois aforesaid, did languish, and languishing did live, on which said sixth day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and seven, in the county of Cook and state of Illinois aforesaid, she, the said Annie Horvatich, by reason of said miscarriage, died; and so the jurors aforesaid, upon their oaths aforesaid, do say that she, the said Lucy Hagenow, her, the said Annie Horvatich, in manner and form aforesaid, unlawfully, feloniously, willfully and of her malice aforethought did kill and murder, contrary to the statute and against the peace and dignity of the same people of the state of Illinois.’

The second count is the same as the first count, except the word ‘abortion’ is substituted in the second count at the several places therein where the word ‘miscarriage’ occurs in the first count.

[236 Ill. 519]The third count, omitting the formal part, charged ‘that one Lucy Hagenow, otherwise called Louise Hagenow, otherwise called Ida Von Schultz, late of the county of Cook, on the fourth day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and seven, in said county of Cook, in the state of Illinois aforesaid, in and upon the body of one Annie Horvatich, in the peace of the people of the state of Illinois then and there being, unlawfully, feloniously, willfully, and of her malice aforethought, did make an assault, and that she, the said Lucy Hagenow, in some way and manner and by some means and devices, a more particular description of which is to the jurors unknown, then and there unlawfully, feloniously, willfully, and of her malice aforethought did cause the abortion of her, the said Annie Horvatich, a woman pregnant with child then and there being; that it was not then and there necessary to so then and there cause such abortion for the preservation of the life of the said Annie Horvatich, as she, the said Lucy Hagenow, then and there well knew; that she, the said Lucy Hagenow, then and there well knew that the use of those means and devices at the time aforesaid, in the manner aforesaid, would then and there produce such abortion; that by reason of such abortion so as aforesaid produced by the said Lucy Hagenow in the manner and at the time aforesaid, the said Annie Horvatich, from the said fourth day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and seven, until afterwards, to wit, the sixth day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and seven, in the county of Cook and state of Illinois aforesaid, did languish, and languishing did live, on which said sixth day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and seven, in the county of Cook and state of Illinois aforesaid, she, the said Annie Horvatich, by reason of said abortion, died; and so the jurors aforesaid, upon their oaths aforesaid, do say that she, the said Lucy Hagenow, her, the said Annie Horvatich, in [236 Ill. 520]manner and form aforesaid, unlawfully, feloniously, willfully and of her malice aforethought did kill and murder, contrary to the statute and against the peace and dignity of the same people of the state of Illinois.’

The fourth count is the same as the third, except the word ‘miscarriage’ is substituted in the fourth count at the several places therein where the word ‘abortion’ occurs in the third count.

The evidence shows: That on Thursday, the 2d day of May, 1907, Annie Horvatich, with her husband, Michael Horvatich, and three children of a former marriage, the oldest of whom was nine years, lived at 4816 Justine street, in the city of Chicago. That the said Annie Horvatich and Michael Horvatich were married on the 27th day of January, 1907. That on the 2d day of May said Annie Horvatich was in her usual health. That on that day she did the family washing and in the afternoon went by street car to a savings bank in South Chicago, some three miles distant from her home, and drew from her savings $25 in cash. That at about 6:30 o'clock of the same evening Michael Horvatich, who testified through an interpreter, stated his wife said to him ‘to go with her, and not to be afraid.’ That he and his wife went by street car to 480 North Clark street, the home of the plaintiff in error, where they arrived late in the evening. That the plaintiff in error lived in the second flat above the street. That he did not know plaintiff in error, and his wife did not tell him her reasons for going to the home of plaintiff in error. That his wife took no clothing other than she had on her person. That he left his wife in the hall of the building in which plaintiff in error lived. That his wife said to him ‘to go home; I will stay here.’ That she told him ‘to take care of the children and to come and see her on Saturday.’ That he left his wife at the plaintiff in error's house and went home.

[86 N.E. 373]

That on Friday afternoon he received the following letter from his wife: [236 Ill. 521]‘Beloved Mike—I let you know everything is well. Slept very well. Take care of the children. Tell Fanny not to go outside unless she puts a cap and coat on her. If she won't, don't leave her out. You see how she is. You didn't have any coffee at home and you were mad this morning. I will take care you won't be angry. Don't be afraid. There won't be any serious happenings. Will be in the house that day until I go home. Come over Saturday afternoon as you said, and tell the children where you are going, so that they won't go away from the house. Tell them I will come back with you. Nothing else. With love and regards to the children. A. H. 480 North Clark street, care Dr. Hagenow, city.’ That on Saturday afternoon he went to the house of the plaintiff in error. That he found his wife sitting on the bed in a room in the house of the plaintiff in error. That she had on an undershirt, and her hips were covered by bedclothes. That she said she was not feeling well, and that she would remain until Monday. That he returned to his home. That on Sunday afternoon he was summoned by telephone to go to the house of the plaintiff in error. That he arrived at her house at 10 o'clock that night. That he found his wife in a different room. That she was in bed. That a doctor by the name of Rasmussen was present. That his wife was very sick. That his wife wanted a doctor from South Chicago to be called, but that the plaintiff in error said it was too late at night to call the doctor. That he remained until toward morning. That his wife was worse. That he went to the house of Mary Galavitch, who could speak English, and she went with him to the plaintiff in error's house. That, when they arrived, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
48 cases
  • State v. Cragun
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • 14 Diciembre 1934
    ...such specific intent. A defendant could not render this testimony incompetent by interposing a particular defense to the charge. People v. Hagenow, supra. In case in chief the state must prove all of the elements of the crime, including the intent, and need not wait to learn the character o......
  • State v. Lewis
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 13 Febrero 1950
    ...prove criminal intent. People v. Rongetti, 338 Ill. 56, 170 N.E. 14; People v. Hobbs, supra [297 Ill. 399, 130 N.E. 779]; People v. Hagenow, 236 Ill. 514, 86 N.E. 370.' The evidence of the other offenses chargeable to the defendant showed that they were similar in character to the abortion ......
  • State v. Bickford
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • 2 Diciembre 1913
    ... ... separate counts are made use of in so doing, the information ... must clearly show but one offense charged. People v ... Thompson, 28 Cal. 217; People v. Shotwell, 27 ... Cal. 394, 400; People v. Garcia, 58 Cal. 103; ... People v. Quvise, 56 Cal. 396; ... 488, 82 N.E. 1039; Porter v ... State, 173 Ind. 694, 91 N.E. 340; Storms v ... State, 81 Ark. 25, 98 S.W. 678; People v ... Hagenow, 236 Ill. 514, 86 N.E. 370; Morse v ... Com. 129 Ky. 294, 111 S.W. 714; Francis v ... State, 7 Tex.App. 501; McCall v. State, 14 ... ...
  • State v. Steadman
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 12 Abril 1950
    ...such specific intent. A defendant could not render this testimony incompetent by interposing a particular defense to the charge. People v. Hagenow, supra. In its case in chief state must prove all of the elements of the crime, including the intent, and need not wait to learn the character o......
  • 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