People v. Ney

CourtIllinois Supreme Court
CitationPeople v. Ney, 349 Ill. 172, 181 N.E. 595 (Ill. 1932)
Decision Date24 June 1932
Docket NumberNo. 21212.,21212.
PartiesPEOPLE v. NEY.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Commissioner's Opinion.

Error to Criminal Court, Cook County: Joseph B. David, Judge.

Thomas Ney was convicted of murder by abortion, and he brings error.

Affirmed.

Everett Jennings, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Atty. Gen., John A. Swanson, State's Atty., of Chicago, and J. J. Neiger, of Springfield (Edward E. Wilson and Grenville Beardsley, both of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

EDMUNDS, C.

Thomas Ney was convicted in the criminal court of Cook county of the murder, by abortion, of Alma Bromps, and his punishment was fixed by the jury at fifteen years in the penitentiary. Motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were overruled and judgment was entered on the verdict. The cause is here on writ of error.

Bob Berry testified that he met Miss Bromps in September, 1930; that she was nineteen years old at that time; that he twice had intercourse with her in November of that year; that he was engaged to be married to her on Christmas day and went out with her constantly afterwards; that about the 15th or 16th of April, 1931, he had a conversation with her and after that conversation telephoned plaintiff in error at his office, 7110 Stony Island avenue, Chicago; that the same night, after making this telephone call, he went to the office of plaintiff in error; that witness talked first with Mabel Boggs, plaintiff in error's nurse; that plaintiff in error then came in, and witness, giving his own name as Robert Webster, told plaintiff in error that witness' youngest sister was pregnant, that he understood plaintiff in error took care of abortion cases, and that he would like to have him take care of this case; that plaintiff in error said he charged $50 for taking care of such cases and told witness to bring her up any time; that he took Miss Bromps to the office of plaintiff in error the next evening; that plaintiff in error asked if that was the girl witness was speaking about, and witness replied she was; that plaintiff in error said, ‘All right,’ and asked her to come into his private office; that just before he went in he said, ‘You can pay me now if you want to’; that witness paid him in cash and asked for a receipt; that plaintiff in error said he would give him a receipt after he got finished; that witness never got a receipt; that he remained in the reception room while plaintiff in error, Mabel Boggs, and deceased were in the private office; that in about ten minutes the three came out; that witness and Miss Bromps went back there five consecutive nights after that; that several times plaintiff in error said to bring her back; that after the fifth visit witness took her home and she went to bed; that the following morning, April 23, she took sick at work and had to go home; that witness saw her in bed at 3 o'clock that afternoon and called plaintiff in error, telling him Miss Bromps was pretty sick and asked him to come and see her; that he did not come, but Mabel Boggs did; that witness did not see Mabel do anything; that he called plaintiff in error the next day and he and Mabel came and went into Miss Bromps' room; that witness was not in the room all the time plaintiff in error and Mabel were there; that before they left witness asked if Miss Bromps was all right, and plaintiff in error said she would be all right and not to worry; that he called plaintiff in error the next day and told him Miss Bromps did not seem to be getting any better and witness would like to call in another doctor; that plaintiff in error said not to do that, that he would come and bring another doctor; that he came that night, bringing Dr. William White; that both doctors went into Miss Bromps' room; that witness was not in the room all the time; that Dr. White said she was pretty sick, ‘better send her to a hospital right away’; that plaintiff in error agreed, and said ‘if anyone should ask us any questions, tell them nothing’; that he said absolutely not to mention that any instrument had been used at all; that at Dr. White's suggestion witness called Dr. William T. Carlisle at St. Luke's Hospital and Dr. White talked to him; that plaintiff in error and Dr. White then left; that Dr. Carlisle arrived about five minutes later and remained about ten minutes; and that an ambulance was called and witness went along with Miss Bromps to the Cook County Hospital.

Katherine Kolb testified that in April, 1931, she ran a rooming house and rented rooms at 2358 Indiana avenue, Chicago; that Miss Bromps was living there during that month; that on the afternoon of April 24 witness saw plaintiff in error and another doctor come out of Miss Bromps' room; that she recognized Berry's voice in the room, also; that while they were in the room she listened through the door and heard Miss Bromps screaming; that a voice said that they were recommending a doctor from St. Luke's Hospital and she had to go there, and this doctor was a ‘crackerjack’ and would pull her out of her condition; that a voice further said they should not say a word to anybody who sent them over there and who treated her or anything; that she asked plaintiff in error who he was, and he said he was a doctor, giving his name as Snyder; that about twenty minutes after they left the doctor from St. Luke's came and witness saw Miss Bromps being removed; and that she looked at the bed in which Miss Bromps had been and the bedclothes were soaked with blood.

Dr. William T. Carlisle testified that he was an assistant in gynecology on the staff of St. Luke's Hospital; that on April 24, 1931, he received a telephone call with reference to Miss Bromps from a party representing himself as her husband; that some one else got on the telephone and asked witness to take Miss Bromps to St. Luke's Hospital; that he then understood the name of this latter as Dr. Wright, but later ascertained it was White; that Dr. White said the patient had some serious complication of appendicitis; that there were no doctors with Miss Bromps when witness arrived at her room; that he examined her and found her in a stuporous condition, with a markedly distended and tense abdomen; that there were blood-stained cloths around her vulva and vagina and stains on the bedclothes; that her temperature was 102 and pulse rapid; that in his opinion she was not then suffering from acute appendicitis but that the distended condition of the abdomen at that time was due to generalized peritonitis; and that he had her sent immediately to the Cook County Hospital.

Dr. Edwin J. DeCosta, resident physician at the Cook County Hospital attending obstetrics, testified that he examined Miss Bromps there; that she was acutely ill, practically ‘in extremis' at the time; that her abdomen was distended, peristaltics were absent and she had free blood inside her addominal cavity; that her skin was ectoric, her pulse about 141, and her temperature 107; that she presented the findings of a generalized peritonitis; that he examined the vagina, which had a small amount of blood; and that the opening to the womb was dilated.

Dr. Samuel Levinson, coroner's physician who performed the autopsy on Miss Bromps on April 26, 1931, testified that her skin was ectoric and her abdomen distended; that her pubic hairs had been shaved; that upon opening her abdomen he found an excessive greenish-gray sticky fluid in the lowermost part of the abdomen; that her intestines were greenish-red and their covering matted together by a thick, pus-like fluid; that the part of the intestines in the pelvic floor region were greenish in color, showing gangrenous changes; that she had a marked hyperemia in the lungs, with clots right in the vessels leading to the lungs; that her heart was soft and flabby and the heart muscle cloudy in appearance, showing it had undergone degenerative processes characteristic of a septic condition; that the liver presented a similar septic change; that the spleen was enlarged, soft, and purplish-red and when cut open the pulp could be scraped away with ease; that the uterus was markedly enlarged; that the cervix (the opening leading to the uterus) was dilated, open, and very soft; that the fundus of the uterus had placental tissues that had a very foul odor; that placental tissue is not found in any cases except in pregnancy; that when he cut into the uterine muscle and applied pressure to it there was free blood and a dirty-like exudate came out; that he was able to press blood out of the fallopian tubes; that when he cut into the ovary there was a large corpus luteum, with several luteum cells surrounding it, and the ovary itself was filled with pus cells, showing infection of the ovary as well as of the uterus and tubes; that he preserved the uterus, fallopian tubes, and ovaries in a jar then identified; that the uterus therein was not a normal or nonpregnant uterus but indicated from its enlargement a pregnancy of three to four months; that under normal circumstances the mouth of the uterus is closed, firm, and hard; that the opening of this one was dilated and soft and had an impression in the upper lip which would indicate that there had been manipulation of some sort; that he cut out part of the tissues of the uterus, fallopian tubes, and ovary to make microscopic tests; that such tests were made; that the section from the uterus showed the wall of the uterus was markedly thickened, and distributed throughout the entire surface of the uterus were pus cells; that the inner lining of the uterus, containing evidence of residual cells, fibers, and blood, indicated miscroscopically placental tissues; that the section from the fallopian tubes was covered with pus cells, indicating a pus infection of the tubes; that the section from the ovary showed large groups of luteum and the ovary itself was filled with pus cells; that in his opinion Miss Bromps was pregnant; that she had a septic...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
17 cases
  • People v. Morris
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • September 23, 1954
    ...Carr, 360 Ill. 88, 195 N.E. 440; People v. Janish, 360 Ill. 155, 195 N.E. 637; People v. Dron, 360 Ill. 309, 195 N.E. 830; People v. Ney, 349 Ill. 172, 181 N.E. 595; People v. Hartwell, 341 Ill. 155, 173 N.E. 112; People v. Zwienczak, 338 Ill. 237, 170 N.E. 303; People v. Thompson, 321 Ill.......
  • People v. Pride
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • January 23, 1959
    ...in looking back over the trial, that he had made some tactical blunder. People v. Stephens, 6 Ill.2d 257, 128 N.E.2d 731; People v. Ney, 349 Ill. 172, 181 N.E. 595. When the representation of the defendant, however, is of such low caliber as to amount to no representation and reduces the tr......
  • People v. Sweeney
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 31, 1977
    ...skill or for the reason that it might appear, in looking back over the trial, that he had made some tactical blunder. People v. Ney, 349 Ill. 172, 181 N.E. 595; People v. Barnes, 270 Ill. 574, 110 N.E. 881; People v. Anderson, 239 Ill. 168, 87 N.E. 917. This court has said that ordinarily a......
  • People v. Cox
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • November 20, 1957
    ...437, 121 N.E.2d 810; Mitchell v. People, 411 Ill. 407, 104 N.E.2d 285; People v. Ephraim, 411 Ill. 118, 103 N.E.2d 363; People v. Ney, 349 Ill. 172, 181 N.E. 595. The same rule must apply where the defendant's chosen attorney later proves to be only an attorney in fact or a layman, for if i......
  • Get Started for Free