Case ID: ill-app_211/html/0377-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Holdom", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Peter Tuhl, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 23,994.
    (Not to he reported in full.)
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Howard Hates, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1918.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed June 10, 1918.
    Statement of the Case.
    Prosecution by the People of the State of Illinois, plaintiff, against Peter Tuhl, defendant, for “larceny of the value of $5.” From a judgment sentencing defendant to a term of one year in the house of correction and fining him $25 and costs, defendant brings error.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Criminal law, § 497
      
       — when assumed, that corporation exists with initials stated in information. In a criminal prosecution for larceny of “the personal goods and property of the P. C. C. and St. L. R. R. Co.,” as charged in the information, where there is no evidence before the court on appeal and only the statutory record has been filed, it will be assumed that there is a corporation bearing such initials.
    2. Larceny, § 41* — what is essential part of finding. An essential part of the finding in a larceny case, by either court or jury, is the value of the property which is the subject of the larceny, and this cannot be dispensed with, as it is necessary to find the value in order to fix the punishment under the statute.
    3. Larceny, § 41*- — when finding 6y court is sufficient. In a larceny case, a finding by the court that the defendant is guilty of “the criminal offense of larceny to the value of $5,” though in-artificial, is sufficient.
    Harry P. Gabel and R. C. Merrick, for plaintiff in error.
    Maclay Hoyne and Edward E. Wilson, for defendant in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice Holdom

delivered the opinion of the court.