People v. Hobbs, 21769.
| Decision Date | 22 April 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 21769.,21769. |
| Citation | 185 N.E. 610,352 Ill. 224 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. HOBBS. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Williamson County; D. T. Hartwell, Judge.
Lorenzo D. Hobbs was convicted of embezzlement, and he brings error.
Reversed.
D. L. Duty, of Marion, for plaintiff in error.
Otto Kerner, Atty. Gen., Charles C. Murrah, State's Atty., of Herrin, and J. J. Neiger, of Springfield, for the People.
Plaintiff in error was convicted in the circuit court of Williamson county of the crime of embezzlement as treasurer of ‘Johnston City Relief Association, a voluntary association of individuals.’ He brings the cause here, assigning as error the overruling of his challenge to the grand jury and his motion to quash the indictment.
[1] Plaintiff in error has filed no bill of exceptions. While the clerk has inserted as a part of the record a motion challenging the grand jury and motion for a new trial, these motions are not incorporated in a bill of exceptions. Such motions, and the court's rulings thereon, to present questions for review here, must be incorporated in a bill of exceptions or a stenographic report signed by the trial judge. People v. Stevens, 335 Ill. 415, 167 N. E. 49;People v. Levin, 318 Ill. 227, 149 N. E. 230;People v. Arnett, 317 Ill. 425, 148 N. E. 306;People v. Levin, 313 Ill. 588, 145 N. E. 75;Pepole v. Ritscher, 301 Ill. 40, 133 N. E. 666;People v. Glasgow, 301 Ill. 394, 134 N. E. 19. Recitals in the judgment order of the court and suggestions in the briefs of counsel that certain motionswere made and rulings had thereon are not sufficient to entitle parties to a decision by this court on such errors assigned thereon. People v. Cowen, 283 Ill. 308, 119 N. E. 335;Harris v. People, 130 Ill. 457, 22 N. E. 826. The record shows, however, that plaintiff in error also moved the court to quash the indictment for insufficiencies appearing on the face thereof. This motion was denied. An indictment stands as an instrument of pleading in a criminal case, and an alleged error based on a ruling on pleadings is reviewable without a bill of exceptions, as the pleadings are included in the record proper. Bennett v. Union Central Life Ins. Co., 203 Ill. 439, 67 N. E. 971;Baker v. People, 105 Ill. 452;Hamlin v. Reynolds, 22 Ill. 207;Safford v. Vail, 22 Ill. 326. The rule requiring a bill of exceptions applies only where the rulling of the court is based upon extrinsic matter, which does not, without being incorporated in a bill of exceptions, becomes a part of the record. There is no more reason for requiring that a motion to quash an indictment be incorporated in a bill or exceptions than that a demurrer be so preserved. People v. Baker, supra. There is therefore here presented the question of the sufficiency of the indictment as shown on its face.
As we have noted, the funds made by the indictment the subject of embezzlement are alleged to belong to the ‘Johnston City Relief Association, a voluntary association of individuals.’ It is a rule long followed in this state, that in indictments for offenses of the character here charged the name of the person or persons injured by the alleged offense must be stated in order that the defendant be later able to plead either former acquittal or former conviction. The ownership of the property is a necessary averment of the indictment. Such ownership must be stated and proved with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial