Steward v. People
| Decision Date | 22 December 1906 |
| Citation | Steward v. People, 224 Ill. 434, 79 N.E. 636 (Ill. 1906) |
| Parties | STEWARD v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; George Kersten, Judge.
Prosecution of Francis M. Steward for robbery. From a conviction, defendant brings error. Reversed.
D. G. Ramsay and Charles G. Neely, for plaintiff in error.
W. H. Stead, Atty. Gen., John J. Healy, State's Atty., and Harry Olson, for the People.
Plaintiff in error was convicted at the January term, 1906, of the criminal court of Cook county of the crime of robbery and sentenced to the penitentiary. To reverse the judgment of the criminal court, he brings the case here by writ of error. Charles Armstrong was jointly indicted with the plaintiff in error, but on the trial he was acquitted.
Plaintiff in error is a physician, and, at the time of the alleged robbery, had an office at 269 Dearborn street, Chicago. Felix Berard, the prosecuting witness, arrived at the depot of the Chicago & Northwestern railway, in the city of Chicago, on the morning of October 13, 1905. He came from Boise City, Idaho, and was on his way to Montreal, Canada. From the Northwestern Depot he went by bus to the Wabash Depot. Berard was of French descent and spoke the French language. The substance of his story from that point is that when he alighted from the bus a ‘runner’ for a restaurant in that vicinity took his satchel and carried it to a restaurant. He started to follow him, when Charles Armstrong, also a restaurant ‘runner,’ asked him where he was going. Berard said he was going to Montreal, and Armstrong then said he was a Frenchman and began talking to Berard in the French language. Armstrong asked him if he had any money, which caused Berard to inquire of Armstrong if he was connected with the station. Armstrong replied that he was not. Berard then said he was going after his satchel, and Armstrong told him the restaurant to which it had been taken was his and assured him the satchel would be perfectly safe. He told Berard he knew some people in Upper Canada, and asked him why he left Boise City. Berard told Armstrong he was not feeling well; that he had a little touch of catarrh, and would go to the station and smoke. As a matter of fact, he says he was feeling all right, but told Armstrong this to get rid of him. Armstrong asked why he did not go see a doctor, and said he knew the best doctor in the city; that he was his family physician and would not charge Berard anything for an examination. After some further urging he went with Armstrong to the office of plaintiff in error. The doctor (plaintiff in error) was not in the office when they arrived, and they sat down and waited till he came, which was in a short time. When the doctor came in he spoke to Armstrong, but Berard did not understand what was said. Dr. Steward then asked Berard if he was sick, and Berard told him he had catarrh. The doctor said he would give him a free examination, but he would have to pay for medicine, and took him into another room where there was an operating chair, told him to take off his coat and vest, pull down his trousers, raise his shirt and undershirt and lie down on the operating chair. All of Berard's money, except some change, was in his vest pocket, and when he was lying on the operating chair he could not see his coat and vest where they were lying on another chair. The doctor took something and pounded over his chest, felt his private parts, and told him to look in a long, black stick and asked him if he could see, to which Berard replied he could see a light. The doctor then took a brush and put something in his nose, which made him spit. Berard then attempted to get up, but the doctor commanded him to sit down and told him of many cures of people all over the world he had effected, and said he had cured heart disease and all other diseases he mentioned. He told Berard he had heart disease and kidney trouble; that his private parts were very weak, and asked him if he had ever had any disease from women, to which Berard replied he had not. He also told him his head was rotten with catarrh and that he stunk. He then inquired of Berard how much money he had, to which Berard made no reply. The doctor then said: Berard says this frightened and excited him, and he said $150; that the doctor touched him a little when he asked how much money he had, and when he attempted to pull up his trousers the doctor pulled them down. Berard says he had $540 besides some change, and that $500 of it was in his inside vest pocket, which was lying on a chair where he could not see it while on the operating chair. The doctor said, ‘You pay me $110.’ Berard got off the chair and said he would do so, and the doctor said, ‘Your money is in your vest pocket,’ and handed Berard the vest, who paid him. Berard says he did it because he was afraid, and that it was the doctor's manner that frightened him. The doctor then gave a prescription for medicine and told him to go out to the White City with Armstrong. Armstrong also asked him to go to the White City. This he declined to do, but went to a drug store. Armstrong accompanied him and got his prescription filled. After leaving the drug store he told Armstrong he was going to a restaurant to get his breakfast, and Armstrong went with him and waited for him outside. When Berard came out from breakfast Armstrong asked him to go with him and get a room and take a sleep. This he declined to do, and said he would go to the station and sit down and smoke. Armstrong told him he would not be allowed to smoke in the station and asked him to go across the street to a hotel or saloon. Berard went with him to the place suggested and Armstrong asked him to have a drink. This he declined, and went to the station and told a policeman of what had happened.
The substance of the most material parts of Armstrong's testimony is that when he first spoke to Berard at the station Berard said he was very sick; that he had a very bad night, and thought he was going home not to come back. Armstrong encouraged him, and told him not to give up, and said to him, as he could not leave till 3 o'clock, he knew a good doctor who was his family physician, and in whose abilities he had great confidence. Berard asked him to accompany him to the doctor's office, which he did. When they arrived at the doctor's office, it was open, but the doctor was not in. He came in a short time afterwards, and Armstrong told the doctor Berard was a countryman of his and wanted to talk to him. The doctor took Berard in another room. Another Dr. Steward, a brother of plaintiff in error, was in one of the rooms of plaintiff in error's suite and a lady also was in his private room. After awhile Berard and the doctor came out into the room where Armstrong was. Berard had a druggist's card in his hand. He and the doctor shook hands and Berard asked Armstrong if he would show him the drug store. He consented, and together they went to the Palmer House drug store. When they left the drug store Berard asked Armstrong to show him the restaurant where his satchel was, which he did, and left him there to eat his breakfast. Afterwards he met Berard, had some little talk with him, asked him to take a drink, which was declined, and they separated.
The substance of the testimony of plaintiff in error was that when he first saw Armstrong and Berard on the...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart 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
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
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
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
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
Start Your Free Trial
-
People v. White
...where it may be doubtful upon which side of the line they should fall." (171 Ill. 540, 542-44, 49 N.E. 495, 496.) See also Steward v. People, 224 Ill. 434, 79 N.E. 636; People v. Campbell, 234 Ill. 391, 84 N.E. 1035; People v. Ryan, 239 Ill. 410, 88 N.E. 170; People v. Jones, 290 Ill. 603, ......
-
State v. Pasek
...of exercising his will through the influence of the terror impressed.' 501 P.2d 155, 157 n. 5 (Alaska 1972) (quoting Steward v. People, 224 Ill. 434, 79 N.E. 636, 639 (1906)). We agree with these authorities and further note that if this reasonable person standard is met, it does not matter......
-
People v. Williams
...such fear as to overpower his will. (Hall v. People, 171 Ill. 540, 49 N.E. 495; People v. Ryan, 239 Ill. 410, 88 N.E. 170; Steward v. People, 224 Ill. 434, 79 N.E. 636.) However, if neither force nor intimidation is present, robbery is not proved. (People v. Jones, 290 Ill. 603, 125 N.E. 25......
-
People v. Patton
...such fear as to overpower his will. (Hall v. People, 171 Ill. 540, 49 N.E. 495; People v. Ryan, 239 Ill. 410, 88 N.E. 170; Steward v. People, 224 Ill. 434, 79 N.E. 636.) * * In People v. Chambliss, 69 Ill.App.2d 459, 217 N.E.2d 422, the court implies that "snatching" does not include suffic......