People v. Rowe

Appellate Court of Illinois

People v. Rowe

157 Ill. App. 542, 1910 Ill. App. LEXIS 323

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedOctober 18, 1910

DocketGen. No. 5310

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 157 Ill. App. 542 (People v. Rowe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Rowe, 157 Ill. App. 542, 1910 Ill. App. LEXIS 323 (Ill. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Willis

delivered the opinion of the court.

On April 14, 1909, the state’s attorney of Marshall county filed an information in the County Court of said county, charging William A. Rowe with the larceny of one wooden park bench of the value of two dollars, the property of the city of Henry. There was a trial and a verdict of the jury finding Rowe guilty and the value of the bench to be two dollars. He was sentenced to imprisonment in the Marshall county jail for the period of one day, and to pay a fine of twenty dollars and costs and to stand committed until the fine and costs were paid, and this writ of error was sued out to review the judgment of the court below.

Defendant in error’s proof showed that plaintiff in error is a man between sixty and seventy years of age and lives in the city of Henry opposite the park from which he took the bench. It also showed that he carried the bench in daylight on a Sunday, with various persons in the vicinity, from the park to an alley between his house and that of the complaining witness, and first placed it in his yard, then on the alley fence, and finally in the alley next to the fence of the prosecuting witness. From the people’s evidence, it is doubtful, notwithstanding the fact that plaintiff in error did not testify in his own behalf, whether he had any intention of stealing it. Plaintiff in error offered no proof.

In People v. Russell, 245 Ill. 268, it is held that larceny, without regard to the value of the property stolen, is an infamous crime, subjecting one convicted of the offense to the deprivation of his civil rights, and can be prosecuted only upon an indictment by a grand jury. Aside from all other questions in the case, this decision requires the reversal of the judgment.

The judgment of the County Court is therefore reversed.

Reversed.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Willis

delivered the opinion of the court.

On April 14, 1909, the state’s attorney of Marshall county filed an information in the County Court of said county, charging William A. Rowe with the larceny of one wooden park bench of the value of two dollars, the property of the city of Henry. There was a trial and a verdict of the jury finding Rowe guilty and the value of the bench to be two dollars. He was sentenced to imprisonment in the Marshall county jail for the period of one day, and to pay a fine of twenty dollars and costs and to stand committed until the fine and costs were paid, and this writ of error was sued out to review the judgment of the court below.

Defendant in error’s proof showed that plaintiff in error is a man between sixty and seventy years of age and lives in the city of Henry opposite the park from which he took the bench. It also showed that he carried the bench in daylight on a Sunday, with various persons in the vicinity, from the park to an alley between his house and that of the complaining witness, and first placed it in his yard, then on the alley fence, and finally in the alley next to the fence of the prosecuting witness. From the people’s evidence, it is doubtful, notwithstanding the fact that plaintiff in error did not testify in his own behalf, whether he had any intention of stealing it. Plaintiff in error offered no proof.

In People v. Russell, 245 Ill. 268, it is held that larceny, without regard to the value of the property stolen, is an infamous crime, subjecting one convicted of the offense to the deprivation of his civil rights, and can be prosecuted only upon an indictment by a grand jury. Aside from all other questions in the case, this decision requires the reversal of the judgment.

The judgment of the County Court is therefore reversed.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 Ill. App. 542, 1910 Ill. App. LEXIS 323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rowe-illappct-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack