People v. Sweeney

Appellate Court of Illinois

People v. Sweeney

185 Ill. App. 340

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedMarch 9, 1914

DocketGen. No. 19,441

StatusPublished

This text of 185 Ill. App. 340 (People v. Sweeney) 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. Sweeney, 185 Ill. App. 340 (Ill. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice McSukely

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. Vagrancy, § 1*—when evidence insufficient to sustain conviction. Under the Vagrancy Act (Criminal- Code, ch. 38, sec. 270, J. & A. If 3962) an essential ingredient of the offense is that the person charged shall have “no lawful means of support” and shall be “habitually found prowling around any steamboat landing, railroad depot * * * store, shop or crowded thoroughfare, car or omnibus,” etc., hence where three police officers testified that defendant was a thief, but as to whether he had any lawful means of support they had no knowledge, there being no evidence that he was habitually found prowling about any of the places named, and defendant’s evidence showed' that he lived with his wife, children and mother, had been employed as a railroad laborer for several months preceding his arrest, had worked until noon on the day of his arrest and was arrested while sitting, in a cigar store about four o’clock in the afternoon, the evidence was held insufficient to sustain a conviction.

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

Mr. Justice McSukely

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. Vagrancy, § 1*—when evidence insufficient to sustain conviction. Under the Vagrancy Act (Criminal- Code, ch. 38, sec. 270, J. & A. If 3962) an essential ingredient of the offense is that the person charged shall have “no lawful means of support” and shall be “habitually found prowling around any steamboat landing, railroad depot * * * store, shop or crowded thoroughfare, car or omnibus,” etc., hence where three police officers testified that defendant was a thief, but as to whether he had any lawful means of support they had no knowledge, there being no evidence that he was habitually found prowling about any of the places named, and defendant’s evidence showed' that he lived with his wife, children and mother, had been employed as a railroad laborer for several months preceding his arrest, had worked until noon on the day of his arrest and was arrested while sitting, in a cigar store about four o’clock in the afternoon, the evidence was held insufficient to sustain a conviction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 Ill. App. 340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sweeney-illappct-1914.