People v. Pernalsky
| Decision Date | 20 February 1929 |
| Docket Number | No. 19294.,19294. |
| Citation | 334 Ill. 38,165 N.E. 190 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. PERNALSKY et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Harry B. Miller, Judge.
Walter Pernalsky and another were convicted of burglary, and they bring error.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.Eugene L. McGarry, of Chicago (Elwyn E. Long, of Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiffs in error.
Oscar E. Carlstrom, Atty. Gen., Robert E. Crowe, State's Atty., of Chicago, and James B. Searcy, of Springfield (Henry T. Chace, Jr., and Edward E. Wilson, both of Chicago, of counsel), for defendant in error.
DE YOUNG, J.
Walter Pernalsky and Joe Szatkousky were indicted in the criminal court of Cook county for burglary. A jury found them guilty and they were sentenced to the penitentiary at Joliet. They prosecute this writ of error for a review of the record.
The indictment consists of three counts. The first charges that the defendants broke and entered the store of the F. W. Woolworth Company, a corporation, with intent to steal its goods and chattels in the store, and that they stole and carried away certain of the goods and chattels. The second count charges the breaking and entering, and the third, the entering. Without force, of the store of the F. W. Woolworth Company, a corporation, with intent to steal from the store personal property of the same corporation.
Reversal of the judgment is sought by the plaintiffs in error upon several grounds. Only one needs to be considered-that the proof must support the allegation of the indictment concerning the ownership of the building entered.
[1][2][3][4][5] It is alleged in each count of the indictment that the plaintiffs in error entered a certain building, namely, the store of the F. W. Woolworth Company, a corporation. The ownership of the building entered is an essential allegation in charging the offense of burglary. Where an allegation of ownership is necessary in an indictment the ownership must be alleged in a person, corporation or other entity that may be the owner of property. People v. Krittenbrink, 269 Ill. 244, 109 N. E. 1005;People v. Brander, 244 Ill. 26, 91 N. E. 59,135 Am. St. Rep. 301,18 Ann. Cas. 341;Aldrich v. People, 225 Ill. 610, 80 N. E. 320. The averment of corporate ownership in such a case is a material one and the existence of the corporation must be proved. People v. Struble, 275 Ill. 162, 113 N. E. 938; People v. Krittenbrink, supra; People v. Fryer, 266 Ill. 216, 107 N. E. 134. The fact need not, however, be shown by the charter or by the articles of incorporation. The act to regulate proof in criminal c...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. McGuire
...is essential to establish that the corporation has been burglarized. (E.g., People v. Nakutin, 364 Ill. 563, 5 N.E.2d 78; People v. Pernalsky, 334 Ill. 38, 165 N.E. 190; People v. Andrae, 305 Ill. 530, 137 N.E. 496; People v. Krittenbrink, 269 Ill. 244, 109 N.E. 1005; People v. Fryer, 266 I......
-
People v. Nelson
...Judgment is affirmed. Judgment affirmed. DRUCKER and ENGLISH, JJ., concur. 1 Sykes v. People, 132 Ill. 32, 23 N.E. 391; People v. Pernalsky, 334 Ill. 38, 165 N.E. 190.2 People v. Patris, 360 Ill. 596, 196 N.E. 806; People v. Barbaro, 395 Ill. 264, 69 N.E.2d 692; People v. Hodson, 406 Ill. 3......
-
People v. Holtzman
...be in a corporation, then the existence of the corporation must be proved. People v. Panczko, 381 Ill. 625, 46 N.E.2d 28; People v. Pernalsky, 334 Ill. 38, 165 N.E. 190. The methods of proving the existence of a corporation are: (1) by introducing the charter of the corporation or a certifi......
-
People ex rel. Ledford v. Brantley
...is known, or it will be fatally defective. (Citation.)' This court also stated in People v. Pernalsky (a burglary indictment,) 334 Ill. 38, 39, 165 N.E. 190, 191, that 'The ownership of the building entered is an essential allegation in charging the offense of burglary. Where an allegation ......