People v. Sweeney

Decision Date21 October 1922
Docket NumberNo. 14707.,14707.
Citation136 N.E. 687,304 Ill. 502
PartiesPEOPLE v. SWEENEY et al.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; M. L. McKinley, Judge.

James Sweeney and Harry Bartlett were convicted of procuring explosive compounds with intent that they should be used for the destruction of life and property, and they bring error.

Reversed and remanded.O'Brien, Prystalski & Owen, of Chicago, for plaintiffs in error.

Edward J. Brundage, Atty. Gen., Robert E. Crowe, State's Atty., of Chicago, and Edward C. Fitch, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Edward E. Wilson and Clyde C. Fisher, both of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

DUNN, J.

James Sweeney and Harry Bartlett were indicted in the criminal court of Cook county, together with Albert Peterson, Samuel Gibson, Thomas Corcoran, Jene Coleman, Andrew Kerr, Joseph Bangora, Charles Borigan, and one Sullivan, whose first name was unknown. The indictment in two counts charged a violation of ‘An act to regulate the manufacture, transportation, use and sale of explosives, and to punish an improper use of the same,’ approved June 16, 1887 (Hurd's Stat. 1921, p. 1072). The first count charged that the defendants did make, manufacture, compound, buy, and procure dynamite, nitrochlorate, and other explosive compounds with intent that the same should be used for the destruction of life and property. The second count charged the defendants with having dynamite, nitrochlorate, and other explosive compounds with intent that the same should be used to injure and destroy a building of the Beehive Laundry Company. On motion of the state's attorney, a separate trial was ordered for Sweeney and Bartlett, they were found guilty and sentenced to the penitentiary for an indeterminate period, and they prosecute this writ of error to secure a reversal of the judgment.

It was shown by the watchman at the Beehive laundry that he went to work the night of February 19, 1921, about 7 o'clock, and about 1 o'clock he was near the engine room when there was an explosion, which caused a loud noise and blew in the large back door, together with a big cloud of smoke and dirt. This was the only evidence of the use of an explosive. The only evidence connecting the plaintiffs in error with the crime was the testimony of Andrew Kerr, who was indicted with them, and their confessions. Kerr's testimony was substantially as follows: He was a stationary engineer employed in the latter part of 1920 by the Mechanics' Laundry & Supply Company and a member of Local 401 of the Stationary Engineers' Union, which on November 22, 1920, called a strike against the laundries. He first met Sweeney outside Engineers' Hall, 814 West Harrison street, the last week of November, 1920. On February 16, 1921, in the hallway outside of Engineers' Hall, Kerr, Sweeney, Bartlett, Turner, an engineer at the Beehive laundry who was on strike, Gibson, who was organizer for Local 402, Peterson, who was business agent of Local 401, and Corcoran, met, and Sweeney said the stuff was all ready to plant some bombs when they were ready to get them planted. Bartlett said it was real stuff. Turner said he wanted Beehive done. Peterson said, ‘No; Mechanics' and Schriver's laundries.’ Turner reminded Peterson of his promise that Beehive should be done first, and Peterson said, ‘All right; I will keep my promise; we will do Beehive and Mechanics'.’ Sweeney said, ‘Give us three addresses; in case we miss Mechanics' and Beehive we can get the third one. Turner said, ‘Make sure you give him the Beehive.’ Peterson gave Sweeney addresses of the Beehive, Schriver's and Mechanics' laundries and said two were to be done that night. Turner said, ‘Will you see us to-morrow? that will be Thursday, and I will give you a drawing of the rear of the Beehive laundry, where you can place the bomb.’ Sweeney and Bartlett both assented and said that they would be back at the hall Thursday after they got the third party, to find out if they could work Friday night. Thursday at 1 o'clock there was another meeting of the same persons at the same place. Sweeney said, ‘Everything is all set for to-morrow night.’ Gibson took $300 from his pocket and gave it to Kerr, to be paid to Sweeney and Bartlett when the jobs were done. Turner furnished the drawing to Sweeney and Bartlett, who said they would try to put it in the coal chute to demolish the engine room. Gibson wanted a receipt, and Sweeney said no receipts were going to be passed in this thing; that he would have to read the newspapers. That same afternoon Corcoran, Gibson, and Kerr were leaving the hall and met Sweeney and Bartlett at Van Buren and Halsted streets. Corcoran asked Sweeney if everything was all set for to-morrow night. Sweeney said, yes; that he was waiting for the other party that was to furnish the dynamite and throw the bombs to come around in an automobile. Corcoran and Gibson left, and at 10 minutes after 3 o'clock Bangora and Borigan came along in a touring car and stopped, and Sweeney went over and talked with them about 10 feet from Kerr and Bartlett. Kerr heard Bangora say: ‘Yes, it is all set for to-morrow night; I have got the stuff and the two bombs are made; we will plant them to-morrow night; if I do not see you in the meantime I will meet you at the other corner at 7:30 to-morrow night; don't forget.’ The car moved on and Sweeney came back to Kerr and Bartlett, and Kerr asked, ‘Is that the party that you have been waiting for—that plants the stuff?’ Sweeney said, ‘Yes; that is him; everything is all set for to-morrow night; now, you better stay home to-morrow night and have an alibi, and tell Turner to do the same thing.’ Kerr asked, ‘Why does he want $25, instead of $10, in advance for the stuff?’ Sweeney said, ‘Well, because there are two bombs going; but what do you care? He has got the twenty-five anyhow.’ Kerr said, ‘Yes, it is not coming out of my pocket,’ and asked, ‘Where did you get the stuff?’ Sweeney said, ‘You can find out to-morrow night where the stuff is got; no, he gets it somewhere else and plants it, and when he takes us up he takes us out and we pick it up; that is the only trouble—he won't let us know where he gets it.’ At 7:30 the next (Friday) night Kerr saw Sweeney and Bartlett standing at the corner of Van Buren and Halsted streets. Bangora and Borigan came up in a car, Sweeney and Bartlett got in, and they drove west. On the following Saturday Sweeney and Bartlett went to Kerr's house. Sweeney had a newspaper and showed the headlines to Kerr, saying, ‘How does that look for advertising? ‘Two Bombs Rock the West Side.’ Look what they done! $25,000 Beehive, $10,000 to Mechanics'.' Sweeney told Kerr not to go near the hall that day, saying, They may make some arrests.’ Kerr paid them the $300, taking Sweeney's receipt. The receipt read:

‘Saturday, Febr. 19th, 1921.

‘Received from Kerr $300.00 for Beehive Ldy. & Mechanics' Supply Co. Jobs.

J. Sweeney.'

Part of the body of the receipt was written with one pencil and the last line with another. Kerr testified that the first pencil broke and he used another to finish. Sweeney, as a witness, testified that he signed it in blank, along with several others, because Kerr asked him to do so, telling him that he had been spending some money and he wanted to make it all right with his wife.

Kerr testified that Sweeney told him how the bombs were set off, and this testimony appears in the abstract as follows:

‘I asked Sweeney why they done the Mechanics' laundry. I did not think it ought to be done because they had the address of Schriver's and Beehive. Sweeney says: ‘There was two coppers on the corner of Hoyne avenue and Van Buren, at the call box, and there was one at the call box at Van Buren and Robey, the next block, and Beehive is situated in between, so we could not come out that way from the alley entrance and we had to drive over to Congress street, and we always lit the fuse for the bombs in the car. We got confused with Turner's sketch. The orders were not to kill anybody on that Beehive job, and we did not want to kill any one on it, so we started looking for the coal chute, and just as we were going to drop it in there the night watchman in the Beehive laundry came back and started shoveling coal in the boiler. We could not drop it in the boiler and demolish the boiler room or we would kill him. We had to be quick. The fuse was burning 2 1/2 minutes then. We had to run over across the street to get to the car. By the time we got 2 1/2 blocks north of there to go to Schriver's the bomb let go, so we figures we would run on over to Mechanics', and we drove there, and it was easy sailing there, and we planted the bomb in the back, like we had instructions to do. Figuring that job, Siebert was sleeping in the engine room at the Mechanics' and they wanted to kill him. So we went over and planted it in the rear of Mechanics' laundry, got in the automobile again, and we would up at Fulton and Leavitt streets before the bomb exploded. From there we went on home. And here is the headline in the paper. Now maybe they will be satisfied. It is good advertising and they are getting off cheap. How is it there is only $300?’ I told him, ‘I don't know, but I will see them about the other $100.’ He said, We want it and want it quick or I will use our own means to get it, and you know what our means is. We will set two bombs like that every two weeks. That will bring them to time.”

Kerr also testified that Sweeney said he used two sticks of dynamite on each of those laundries, and that he gave Sweeney the balance of the $400, then amounting to $70, in a saloon at the corner of Jackson boulevard and California street on February 26th or 28th, and took from him a receipt which was in evidence, as follows:

Mar. 1st.

‘Received from Kerr $100.00 final payment of $400.00 for Beehive Ldy. & Mechanics' Supply Co.

J. Sweeney.'

Kerr had previously paid $30, taking no receipt. Sweeney testified that he signed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
46 cases
  • State v. Lord
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • October 8, 1938
    ...in the case) and the six officers who knew the facts and who could have contradicted Lord's testimony if it was false. People v. Sweeney, 304 Ill. 502, 136 N.E. 687. If in truth coercive or persuasive means were used to extort the confession, then the answers of the state witnesses to the t......
  • Stagemeyer v. State
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • June 18, 1937
    ... ... must be done and that part, only, of the confession admitted ... which is material to the issues on trial." People v ... Spencer, 264 Ill. 124, 106 N.E. 219 ...          Error ... to District Court, Furnas County; Eldred, Judge ... 19, 228 P. 361; People v ... Eli, 131 Cal.App. 482, 21 P.2d 654; People v ... Klyczek, 307 Ill. 150, 138 N.E. 275; People v ... Sweeney, 304 Ill. 502, 136 N.E. 687; Zuckerman v ... People, 213 Ill. 114, 72 N.E. 741; Commonwealth v ... Jokinen, 257 Mass. 429, 154 N.E. 189; ... ...
  • People v. Patterson
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • December 4, 1992
    ...enforced this rule in an unbroken line of cases. (See People v. Rogers (1922), 303 Ill. 578, 136 N.E. 470; People v. Sweeney (1922), 304 Ill. 502, 136 N.E. 687; see Armstrong, 51 Ill.2d at 476, 282 N.E.2d 712 (and cases cited).) Further, the precise scope of a preliminary hearing to determi......
  • People v. Sims
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • March 29, 1961
    ...police department men engaged or present at the sweating' (People v. Spranger, 314 Ill. 602, 610, 145 N.E. 706, 710; People v. Sweeney, 304 Ill. 502, 513, 136 N.E. 687); 'all the persons who had control over the defendant and are allegedly involved in the use of coercion' (People v. LaCoco,......
  • 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