TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hildreth v. People

Jeff. Hildreth v. The People of the State of Illinois

Hildreth v. People, 32 Ill. 36 (1863)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Illinois Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 15, 1863
Judges
Walker
Citations
32 Ill. 36
Headnotes
1. Vebdict — on conviction for larceny. A party was indicted for stealing twelve hundred and seventy dollars in current bank bills of the value of $1,2'70. The jury found him “ guilty of larceny of twelve hundred and seventy dollars, as charged in the indictment.’’ This was a sufficient finding of the value of the property stolen. 2. Evidence in cbiminaij cases — what is proof of genuineness of money stolen. Upon the trial of a party charged with stealing current bank bills, the genuineness of the bills is fully proven by evidence that they passed at only one per cent, discount.
Summary
Writ op Error to the Recorder's Court of the city of Chicago; the Hon. Robert S. Wilson, Judge, presiding. The plaintiff in error, Jeff. Hildreth, was tried at the June Term, 1862, of the court helow, upon an indictment charging him with having stolen ten one hundred dollar bank bills, and twelve hundred and seventy dollars in current bank bills, of the value of $1,270. The only question made upon the evidence was, whether it was sufficiently proven that the bank bills which were stolen, were genuine. On this subject, Mr. J. Conrad testified, that he had been a banker for five years, and upon examining the bills in question, stated that they were current funds in Chicago, and were worth one hundred cents on the dollar. It was further proven, that the bills passed at but one per cent, discount. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, in these words: “ We, the jury, find the defendant guilty of larceny of twelve hundred and seventy dollars, as charged in the indictment, and fix his punishment at three years in the State penitentiary.” A motion for a new trial was overruled, and a judgment entered upon the verdict. The defendant sued out this writ of error, and now alleges: 1. That the bank bills charged to have been stolen were not proven to be genuine; and, 2. That the verdict was insufficient in not finding the value of the property.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Walker

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Mr. Justice Walker delivered the opinion of the Court:

It is urged that the verdict in this case is not sufficient to sustain the judgment. It is this: “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty of larceny, of twelve hundred and seventy dollars, as charged in the indictment, and fix his punishment at three years in the state penitentiary.” It is true the verdict does not, in terms, find the value of the money stolen. But it finds that he was guilty of stealing a certain number of dollars, and as dollars indicate a fixed and precise value, the verdict is as certain in that respect as if they had found the worth of the money. The indictment charges that the defendant stole so many dollars in bank bills, and the jury find that he was guilty of the larceny of that number of dollars. This was, although not strictly in form, sufficient in substance.

The evidence was sufficient to warrant the finding of the jury. It showed that the bills passed at but one per cent, discount, and this was a fact which clearly established that the bills were genuine. We know that spurious and broken bank bills do not circulate, and never pass at so small a discount. It is only genuine bills, on solvent banks, that circulate as money. When it was proved that these bills were at but one per cent, discount, that was ample evidence under which to find the bills genuine.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1895: 11896: 11898: 218952026peak 1898 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Meadowcroft v. People163 Ill. 56 (1896)
  2. Bartley v. State73 N.W. 744 (Neb. 1898)
  3. Kromer v. Friday32 L.R.A. 671 (Wash. 1895) · Dissent
  4. Mills v. State73 N.W. 761 (Neb. 1898)

Most recent

  1. Mills v. State73 N.W. 761 (Neb. 1898)
  2. Bartley v. State73 N.W. 744 (Neb. 1898)
  3. Meadowcroft v. People163 Ill. 56 (1896)
  4. Kromer v. Friday32 L.R.A. 671 (Wash. 1895) · Dissent

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list