Noe v. People

39 Ill. 96
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1866
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 39 Ill. 96 (Noe v. People) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Noe v. People, 39 Ill. 96 (Ill. 1866).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Lawrence

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an indictment framed under the one hundred and twelfth section of the Criminal Code, which imposes a fine of fifty dollars upon any person who, at late and unusual hours of the night, maliciously or willfully disturbs the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or family by loud or unusual noises, or by tumultuous and offensive carriage. A motion was made to quash the second count of the indictment, and overruled. The objection taken to it is, that the venue was defectively laid. It is as follows: “ And the grand jurors aforesaid chosen, selected and sworn in and for the county of-, aforesaid,” etc. This was sufficient. It refers by the term “ aforesaid,” with sufficient certainty to the county named in the first count.

The indictment was for disturbing the neighborhood and family of Lethe M. Dickson. ' The proof showed that she lived alone in her own house, her husband being in the army, and that the plaintiffs in error collected at a window of her house in the night and fired pistols. It is urged that the disturbance of Lethe M. Dickson did not, as stated in the instructions of the court, amount to a disturbance of either her family or her neighborhood. The statute however, is not to receive so narrow a construction. Its intent is, to protect all persons from unlawful annoyances in their abodes at night, and a woman occupying her dwelling alone is as much under such protection as if surrounded by children or friends. Whether with strict verbal accuracy she can be said to constitute her own family, is not important. An unlawful disturbance of her in the night time would he strictly a disturbance of her “ neighborhood,” and in the sense in which the term family is used in this statute, it would also be a disturbance of her family.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Albert
611 N.E.2d 567 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1993)
People v. Davis
413 N.E.2d 413 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1980)
The People v. Nelson
77 N.E.2d 171 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1948)
Willburn v. People
55 Colo. 454 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1913)
People v. Jones
89 N.E. 711 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1909)
Miles v. United States
103 S.W. 598 (Court Of Appeals Of Indian Territory, 1907)
People v. Davis
2 Ill. Cir. Ct. 395 (Illinois Circuit Court, 1907)
State v. Assmann
24 S.E. 673 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1896)
People v. Broadway Railroad
26 Abb. N. Cas. 407 (New York Court of Appeals, 1891)
Proctor v. Hann. & St. Joe. R. R.
64 Mo. 112 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1876)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
39 Ill. 96, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/noe-v-people-ill-1866.