Case Name: Andrew J. Bromley, indicted with Dempsey Abels, and Smith Sullivan, Plaintiff in Error, v. The People, Defendants in Error
Court: Illinois Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1861-11
Citations: 27 Ill. 20
Docket Number: 
Parties: Andrew J. Bromley, indicted with Dempsey Abels, and Smith Sullivan, Plaintiff in Error, v. The People, Defendants in Error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Reports
Volume: 27
Pages: 20–21

Head Matter:
Andrew J. Bromley, indicted with Dempsey Abels, and Smith Sullivan, Plaintiff in Error, v. The People, Defendants in Error.
ERROR TO MARION.
This court will not disturb a verdict, which the evidence justifies.
At the July special term of Marion Circuit Court, 1861, the plaintiff, Andrew J. Bromley, was indicted with Dempsey Abels and Smith Sullivan for larceny, in stealing one shoulder of bacon, of the value of two dollars, one ham of bacon, of the value of two dollars and fifty cents, and eight sides of bacon, of the value of three dollars each, the property of John Wood. The indictment was in proper form, and the plaintiff was tried separately before Bryan, Judge, and a jury.
The jury found the defendant guilty, and sentenced him to imprisonment in the penitentiary for one year; whereupon the defendant moved for an arrest of judgment and for a new trial, for several reasons; but the ground relied upon for a new trial was, that the verdict was contrary to the law' and evidence. The court overruled the motions in arrest of a new trial, and rendered judgment upon the verdict of the jury.
R. S. Nelson, for Plaintiff in Error.
T. S. Casey, State’s Attorney for The People.

Opinion:
Caton, C. J.
The only point relied on for the reversal of this judgment is, that the evidence did not sustain the verdict. In this we cannot agree with the counsel for the prisoner. That a larceny was committed as charged in the indictment, is not questioned. And the tracks of the prisoner's horses from his stable to the place where the meat was stolen, and back to the stable, which was distinctly proved, would seem to leave no doubt, that the meat was carried away, and to the premises of the prisoner, on his horses. In addition to this, a portion of the stolen meat was found on the prisoner's premises, secreted under a stack. The only explanation of this, is the prisoner's own declaration, that the other prisoners indicted with him, had taken his horses and brought away the meat without his knowledge, and the testimony of one or two witnesses, that they had never heard anything against his character; while another witness had heard.him suspected of counterfeiting. Upon this evidence the jury convicted the prisoner, and we think they were justified in doing so.
The judgment is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.