Winship v. People of State
| Decision Date | 30 September 1869 |
| Citation | 1869 WL 5329,51 Ill. 296 |
| Parties | JAMES WINSHIPv.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
WRIT OF ERROR to the Recorder's Court of the City of Chicago; the Hon. W. K. MCALLISTER, Judge, presiding. The opinion states the case.
Messrs. ASAY & LAWRENCE, for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. CHARLES H. REED, State's attorney, for the people.
This was an indictment in the Recorder's Court of the City of Chicago, against James Winship, for false imprisonment.
The defendant appeared in court and was duly arraigned and pleaded not guilty. The cause was then continued to the next term, the defendant giving bail for his appearance as required by the order of the court.
At the next term, the defendant entered his motion to dismiss the prosecution, for the reason that the name of a prosecutor was not indorsed upon the indictment and that the indictment did not purport, on its face, to have been found upon the information and knowledge of two or more of the grand jury, or upon the information of some public officer in the necessary discharge of his duty.
The court overruled the motion, and the defendant was put upon trial upon his plea formerly pleaded, and the jury found him guilty. A motion was made for a new trial, which was overruled. A motion in arrest of judgment was also overruled, and judgment entered on the verdict.
To reverse this judgment, the defendant brings the case here by writ of error, assigning as error, the refusal of the court to dismiss the prosecution for the reason given, refusing a new trial, denying the motion in arrest of judgment, and in refusing instructions asked by the defendant and in giving the instructions for the people.
Upon the first point, it is only necessary to remark, that although the statute makes the requirement which was the basis of the motion to dismiss the indictment, Gross' Stat. 220, yet it also requires that all exceptions which go to the form of an indictment merely, shall be made before trial. Ib. 216.
The words “before trial,” have been uniformly held to mean before plea pleaded, and the motion should have been made at the earliest practicable moment before a plea to the merits. It is a dilatory motion, and must be made in apt time.
The motion in arrest of judgment, must be predicated upon some intrinsic defect in the indictment, and can not be sustained for any matter not affecting the real merits of the offense charged in the indictment. Ib. 216.
The want of a prosecutor's name on the indictment, or the absence of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walton v. Develing
...People, 16 Ill. 535; Brown v. The People, 19 Ill. 613; Wightman v. Wightman, 45 Ill. 167; Winkelman v. The People, 50 Ill. 449; Winship v. The People, 51 Ill. 296. According to the statute, circuit courts have power to punish all contempts “for disobeying any of its process, rules or orders......
-
Young v. People
...be sustained for any matter not affecting the real merits of the offense charged in the indictment. Cr. Code, § 9, div. 11; Winship v. People, 51 Ill. 296; 12 Enc. Pl. & Prac. 798. The judgment will be affirmed. Judgment ...
-
Ex parte Winn
...toward the court, the glance of the eye and his facial expression. 7 Q. B. 984; 105 Ind. 513; 3 Minn. 274; 46 Neb. 149; 32 Vt. 253; 51 Ill. 296; 106 Ia. 7; 5 Col. 2. The omission of the findings of fact in the judgment does not invalidate it. 5 Iredell's Law, 149; Id. 199; Rapalje on Contem......