Rogers v. People of State
| Decision Date | 14 May 1881 |
| Citation | 1881 WL 10517,98 Ill. 581 |
| Parties | ANDREW ROGERSv.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
WRIT OF ERROR to the Criminal Court of Cook county; the Hon. SIDNEY SMITH, Judge, presiding.
Mr. E. B. MCCLANAHAN, and Mr. W. S. FORREST, for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. JAMES MCCARTNEY, Attorney General, Mr. LUTHER LAFLIN MILLS, State's Attorney, and Mr. GEORGE C. INGHAM, Assistant State's Attorney, for the People.
The plaintiff in error, Andrew Rogers, was convicted of burglary in the Criminal Court of Cook county, and sentenced to three years' imprisonment in the penitentiary.
Two alleged errors are complained of:
First--That the verdict of the jury was against the evidence.
Second--That plaintiff in error was prejudiced by a certain question put to him, while testifying as a witness in his own behalf, by the presiding judge.
The crime was committed on Saturday, March 6, 1879, in the dwelling house of Edward C. Young, situate in the city of Chicago, on the corner of Dearborn and Thirty-second streets, in the absence of the occupants.
The only testimony in the case tending to connect Rogers with the burglary, was that of Richard Lydston, a boy only ten years old. He testified to seeing two men lurking about the house on that day, and coming from the back part of it, which had been broken into, under such circumstances as to leave no reasonable doubt that they were the persons who committed the crime; and he positively identified the defendant as being one of these two men.
Against this was the testimony of the defendant, sustained and corroborated by that of Mary Kane and Kitty White, that all the while from ten o'clock in the evening of Friday, March 5, 1879, till ten o'clock on Saturday evening, March 6, 1879, the defendant was in the room of Mary Kane, on State street, three miles distant from the house of Young; that these three, with a man of the name of Wilder, were there together that evening of March 5; that defendant and Wilder slept in the room that night, and the two women went to Kitty White's room to sleep.
About 12 o'clock M., the next day, the two women returned to this room, and found defendant and Wilder abed; that soon after, they arose and dressed, and the four stayed there and played cards till four o'clock in the afternoon, when Wilder left, but defendant stayed till about ten o'clock at night, and then went home. This room was in the middle of the house, with a door opening into a hall, and no window in the room.
This period testified to embraced the time when the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Brady
...credibility of the testimony, and their verdict will not be disturbed by a court of review because the evidence is conflicting. Rogers v. People, 98 Ill. 581;Hanrahan v. People, 91 Ill. 142;People v. McCann, 247 Ill. 130, 93 N. E. 100,20 Ann. Cas. 496. We have examined the criticisms of thr......
- People v. McCann
- People v. Deluce
-
Chicago v. Sierer
...Smart, 59 Ill. 440; Paton v. Stewart, 78 Ill. 481; Hubbard v. Rankin, 71 Ill. 124; Chicago City R'y Co. v. Young, 62 Ill. 238; Rogers v. The People, 98 Ill. 581; Birdenthal v. Davidson, 61 Ill. 460; Gowen v. Kehoe, 71 Ill. 66; Meyer v. Mead, 83 Ill. 19; Carter v. Gunnels, 67 Ill. 270; Pulli......