The City of Bloomington v. Heiland
| Decision Date | 31 January 1873 |
| Citation | 67 Ill. 278,1873 WL 8195 |
| Parties | THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTONv.HENRY HEILAND. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of McLean county; the Hon. THOMAS F. TIPTON, Judge, presiding.
This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Henry Heiland against the city of Bloomington. The declaration contained the common counts only. The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court. The plaintiff recovered, and the defendant appealed.
Mr. IRA J. BLOOMFIELD, for the appellant.
Messrs. HUGHES & MCCART, and Messrs. STEVENSON & EWING, for the appellee.
This was an action of assumpsit, in the McLean circuit court, on the common counts, brought by Henry Heiland against the city of Bloomington, resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff, on which the court rendered judgment. To reverse this judgment the defendant appeals.
That there are three hundred dollars of the money of the plaintiff in the city treasury is not denied; the question is, has the city, under the facts of the case, a right to retain it.
The facts, briefly stated, are, that plaintiff, a stranger, and a German, ignorant of our language, was arrested on the Saturday night of the sixth of July, 1872, by a policeman, for an alleged violation of a city ordinance, but without any warrant. He was taken to the calaboose and detained over Sunday, and, while so in confinement and under duress, the policeman took from the prisoner his money, amounting to six hundred and ninety-two dollars, three hundred dollars of which the policeman paid over to the city attorney, and he to the city treasury; of the balance he made a special deposit in the bank. The city claims the right to retain this three hundred dollars, on these grounds: On Monday following the event, the accused was brought before the police magistrate. The prosecution not being ready to proceed with the trial, on account of the absence of the policeman, the magistrate took what was deemed the recogizance of the prisoner in the sum of three hundred dollars, to appear at two o'clock in the afternoon, and released him. No recognizance, such as required by law, was taken, no bond being entered into, nor was any entered on the minutes of the police magistrate. It was the mere verbal promise of the accused to be present at that hour. When the hour arrived the accused was called, but came not; whereupon the policeman who had taken possession of the money, doubtless acting under the direction of the attorney of the accused, paid...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Johnston
...89 Ill.Dec. 644, 480 N.E.2d 1387; People v. Powell (1981), 95 Ill.App.3d 93, 50 Ill.Dec. 600, 419 N.E.2d 708, citing City of Bloomington v. Heiland (1873), 67 Ill. 278; see also People v. Carroll (1982), 109 Ill.App.3d 1041, 65 Ill.Dec. 573, 441 N.E.2d 888 (trial in absentia on charge of re......
-
Kurrus v. Mayo
...v. Sanborn, 2 Scam. 123; Nolan v. Jackson, 16 Ill. 272; Trumbull v. Nicholson, 27 Ill. 149; Vickery v. McClellan, 61 Ill. 311; Wadhams v. Hieland, 67 Ill. 278. Not being a party to the garnishment proceeding, the assignee is not bound by that judgment: Cooper v. McClun, 16 Ill. 435; Allen v......
-
People v. Powell
...if the offense be only a misdemeanor or violation of an ordinance, the defendant may be tried in his absence. (City of Bloomington v. Heiland (1873), 67 Ill. 278, 280.) More significantly, a voluntary absence from the trial by the defendant constitutes a waiver of his right to be present. P......
-
People v. Hall
...or violation of an ordinance. (People v. Powell (1981), 95 Ill.App.3d 93, 95, 50 Ill.Dec. 600, 419 N.E.2d 708; City of Bloomington v. Heiland (1873), 67 Ill. 278, 280.) The decision to proceed in absentia is a matter within the discretion of the trial judge. People v. Joyner (1982), 109 Ill......