People v. Quesse
| Decision Date | 06 February 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 15558.,15558. |
| Citation | 142 N.E. 187,310 Ill. 467 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. QUESSE et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Second Branch Appellate Court, First District, on Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; John A. Swanson, Judge.
William F. Quesse and others were convicted of conspiracy, and they bring error.
Affirmed.
Willard M. McEwen, of Chicago, for plaintiffs in error.
Edward J. Brundage, Atty. Gen., Robert E. Crowe, State's Atty., of Chicago, and George C. Dixon, of Dixon (Edwin J. Raber and Edward E. Wilson, both of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
Plaintiffs in error, William F. Quesse, Eugene Fosdick, John D. Sullivan, Claude F. Peters, Robert Osterberg, Frank McWatters, George Watters, John Mattis, Peter Lagey, and Gus Anderson, were indicted in the criminal court of Cook county on a charge of conspiracy. There were 12 counts in the indictment. The last 2 were nolle pros'd. A separate verdict was returned as to each of the 10 defendants, finding him guilty in manner and form as charged ‘in the seventh count or counts of the indictment.’ The cause comes here on the common-law record.
The grounds upon which the plaintiffs in error seek reversal are, first, that the seventh count of the indictment is insufficient to sustain the verdict; second, that the verdict is uncertain and insufficient to sustain the judgment; and third, that counts 7 and 8 are identical in legal effect, and, since the jury returned no specific verdict as to the eighth count, the effect of the verdict is a finding of not guilty as to both the seventh and eighth counts.
The seventh count charges that on January 10, 1921, in Cook county, Ill., and for a long time prior thereto, divers large numbers of individuals owned and possessed apartment buildings and apartment hotels in the city of Chicago, which they leased to divers individuals as dwellings, and that in the business of conducting such apartments the owners thereof had in their employ persons known as janitors;that the defendants, with intent to extort from the persons owning these apartment buildings and hotels large sums of money for their own use, did unlawfully conspire together and with divers other persons whose names are unknown, with intent to wrongfully induce and persuade the janitors to cease work as such, and to boycott the owners of the buildings and prevent their furnishing janitor service to their tenants, unless the owners of the apartment buildings and hotels should pay to defendants large sums of money, and that by means of the conspiracy the defendants unlawfully and knowingly obtained from the owners of the apartment and hotel buildings divers large sums of money. The eighth count is similar to the seventh, except that it charges that the conspiracy was directed against and money was extorted from four certain named individuals and divers other persons whose names were unknown to the grand jury.
The first objection is that relating to the sufficiency of the seventh count of the indictment; it being urged that this count does not charge an offense, that the act charged is not a criminal offense, and that the count is insufficient, in that it neither designates a class nor describes a group of individuals against whom the conspiracy was directed, or specifically names them. Where an indictment designates a class or describes a group of individuals against whom the conspiracy is directed, it is not necessary that the names of such individuals be included in the indictment. Lowell v. People, 229 Ill. 227, 82 N. E. 226;People v. Smith, 239 Ill. 91, 87 N. E. 885;United States v. Stone (D. C.) 188 Fed. 838;Collins v. Commonwealth, 3 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 220;McKee v. State, 111 Ind. 378, 12 N. E. 510; Queen v. Peck, 36 Eng. C. L. 362. The indictment alleges that there were divers large numbers of individuals who were the owners and possessed of apartment buildings and apartment hotels in the city of Chicago. This court will take cognizance of the fact that the city of Chicago is a large city, and that there are doubtless a large number of buildings of the class referred to in the indictment, and therefore a large number of people who own, possess, and conduct the same. It would be unreasonable to expect the state to name the owners of all such buildings in an indictment where it charges conspiracy against all of such owners, or a large portion thereof. We are of the opinion that the indictment sufficiently charges or describes a class or group.
Counsel's contention that the combination set out in the seventh count of the indictment does not show a criminal conspiracy is settled adversely in People v. Curran, 286 Ill. 302, 121 N. E. 637, where...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Olson, 49158
...of a certain brokerage firm); Mays v. State, 182 Tenn. 316, 186 S.W.2d 334 ('another' includes governmental agencies); People v. Quesse, 310 Ill. 467, 142 N.E. 187, 188; Moore v. Commonwealth, 92 Ky. 630, 18 S.W. 833 (decision based in part on statutory definition of person); 15 C.J.S. Cons......
-
People v. Hansen
...at the time who was the owner. See: People v. Beeftink, 21 Ill.2d 282, 171 N.E.2d 632; 15 C.J.S. Conspiracy, § 84; and cf. People v. Quesse, 310 Ill. 467, 142 N.E. 187. Based upon the testimony of a buyer for the Jewel Tea Company, who stated that the fair cash market value of each dryer wa......
- People v. Schneider
-
People v. Bailey
...and in determining the meaning the entire record will be searched and all parts of the record interepreted together. People v. Quesse, 310 Ill. 467, 142 N.E. 187;People v. Tierney, 250 Ill. 515, 95 N.E. 447. Here the finding contained in the verdict that the plaintiff in error had been prev......