Case ID: ill-app_209/html/0473-01.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. John M. Tananevicz, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 23,556. (Not to be reported in full.)
    Error to the Criminal Court of Cook county; the Hon. Hugo Pam, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1917.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed March 5, 1918.
    Rehearing denied March 18, 1918.
    Statement of the Case.
    Prosecution by the People of the State of Illinois, plaintiff, against John M. Tananevicz, defendant, for receiving as a banker, while knowingly insolvent, a deposit in contravention of Rev. St. ch. 38, sec. 25a (J. & A. ¶ 3517). From a judgment of conviction, defendant brings error.
    The jury rendered a verdict of guilty and fixed the punishment at imprisonment in the. penitentiary for three years and a fine of $280. On this verdict the court sentenced defendant to the payment of the fine of $280 and to confinement in the penitentiary for a term of from one to three years.
    Smith & Petersoh, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Criminal law—what reviewed when hill of exceptions stricken from files. Where the bill of exceptions is stricken from the files in a criminal case, there is left for review only such parts of the common-law record as are assigned and argued as error.
    2. Criminal law, § 333
      
      —when words in verdict fixing punishment deemed to he surplusage. Even though a jury in a prosecution for a felony has no power to fix the punishment in a verdict finding him guilty, under the Act of July 1, 1917, relating to paroles, section 3, providing that the jury in felony cases' or in cases where the crime is punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary or jail in its verdict shall not fix the limit of duration of confinement, yet all matter following the finding of guilty in a verdict finding defendant guilty and fixing the term of imprisonment and iniposing a fine may be regarded as surplusage where the verdict is complete upon disregarding the words fixing the punishment, and the court may impose the proper sentence.
    Maclay Hoyne and Edwin J. Baber, for defendant in error; Edward E. Wilson, of counsel.
    
      
      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.