Williams v. People
| Decision Date | 16 April 1902 |
| Citation | 196 Ill. 173,63 N.E. 681 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS .v PEOPLE. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to criminal court, Cook county; Abner Smith, Judge.
John W. Williams was convicted of burglary, and brings error. Affirmed.R. A. Wade (F. M. Burwash, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
H. J. Hamlin, Atty. Gen., C. S. Deneen, State's Atty. (Frank Crowe, of counsel), for the People.
During the night of June 14, 1901, a burglary of the express office of Peter E. Sorenson in Chicago was committed, and a trunk owned by Francis E. North, which was to be sent by express to Chattanooga, Tenn., was broken open, and clothing and a silk doily were stolen therefrom. On the night of July 15, 1901, plaintiff in error, while running south on Market street in Chicago, was arrested by a police officer. When searched at the police station, a jimmy and punch and a pair of pliers and a case knife were found in his possession. At his request, two police officers were sent to his room for underwear, and they found in the room the clothing and doily stolen from the trunk at the time of the burglary of the express office. Plaintiff in error was then indicted and tired in the criminal court of Cook county for the burglary. The indictment charged him with receiving stolen property, and also with the burglary of the express office, and alleged that he had been previously twice convicted of the crime of burglary and sentenced to the penitentiary. Upon the trial, he was found guilty of burglary, and sentenced to the penitentiary at Joliet.
It is first contended that the evidence did not warrant the verdict. The crime was committed on June 14, 1901, and a woman, at whose house defendant roomed, testified that he brought the stolen goods to his room in the middleof June, 1901. The defendant fixed the time that he brought them to his room a few days later, and testified that he bought the clothing from Charles Barker in the rear room of a saloon on June 20, 1901, for $26. It was admitted on the part of the people that Charles Barker and Barney Johnson, if present, would also testify to such purchase. There was evidence that he gave other and contradictory accounts of how he came into the possession of the clothing. Defendant worked in a rattan factory, and among the clothes was a dress suit, which, his counsel say, was unsuited to his station, and which he had no use for. A policeman testified that defendant told him he had the dress suit made in Iowa, and that a lady friend made the doily for him. The landlady testified that defendant said that a lady friend made the doily for him, and that he brought the clothes from his former boarding place, where he had left them about the middle of the previous March. Counsel say he would not steal a dress suit, because he had no use for it, but that would be a more forcible reason why he should not buy one or have one made. He might have thought it would have some value for trade, or sale, or some other purpose, if he was committing a larceny. The principal argument, however, under this head is that it would be incredible that defendant should send police officers for underwear to the room where this stolen property was. He had been caught running away, and with burglar's tools in his possession, and may have thought that his room would be searched in any event. Whether he thought that the property stolen from an express office, ready for shipment to another place, would never be claimed or identified, or whatever his reason for sending the officers to his room, that fact is not sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt of his guilt, in view of all the evidence. It is also urged that he proved a good character, which should be taken into account. Several witnesses from the factory testified that he had behaved as a good citizen during their acquaintance with him, but he admitted that he had been in the penitentiary three times for burglary, and it can hardly be said that the evidence, as a whole, proved the fact that he had been a good citizen or bore a good character. We think the evidence justified the verdict.
It is next complained that the court made prejudicial remarks in the presence of the jury. Only one of the alleged remarks appears in the abstract, and no objection was made to it. It occurred when the burglar's tools were offered in evidence. Defendant's counsel objected to them, and the court, in ruling on the objection, said: ‘They are a circumstance in connection with defendant; therefore I think they have a right to be in.’ The defendant objected to the ruling, and saved his exception. No question relating to the remark was preserved in the record. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sorenson v. United States
...and the tools were produced in court and shown to the jury. It was held that the evidence was properly admitted. In Williams v. People, 196 Ill. 173, 63 N.E. 681, express office in Chicago was broken into, a trunk broken open, and certain articles stolen. Evidence was admitted that when the......
-
People v. Housby
...v. Bennett (1954), 3 Ill.2d 357, 363, 121 N.E.2d 595; People v. Sampson (1929), 337 Ill. 643, 650, 169 N.E. 772; Williams v. People (1902), 196 Ill. 173, 178, 63 N.E. 681; Smith v. People (1885), 115 Ill. 17, 21, 3 N.E. 733.) These decisions preceded County Court and did not consider the pr......
-
State v. Apan
...N. W. 403, 404; State v. O'Meara, 190 Iowa, 613, 177 N. W. 563, 569; Hogg v. State, 18 Ala. App. 179, 89 So. 859, 860; Williams v. People, 196 Ill. 173, 63 N. E. 681, 683; Zell v. State, 189 Ind. 433, 127 N. E. 1, 2, 9 A. L. E. Judgment that there is no error in the proceedings, and that th......
-
Banning v. United States
...its commission have a probative value. Commonwealth v. Williams, 2 Cush., Mass., 582, 583; State v. Dubois, 49 Mo. 573; Williams v. People, 196 Ill. 173, 63 N.E. 681; People v. Gregory, 130 Mich. 522, 90 N.W. Each of the appellants testified on his own behalf and in the course of his testim......