« ForrigeFortsett »
LEGAL DEFINITIONS C+
A COLLECTION OF WORDS AND PHRASES AS
OF BOOKS ON LEGAL SUBJECTS
COMPILED AND ARRANGED BY
BENJAMIN W. POPE
THE PERRY COUNTY (ILLINOIS) BAR
IN TWO VOLUMES
CALLAGHAN AND COMPANY
Pope's Legal Definitions
The letter J used as an abbreviation for the christian name of a person, is merely the christian name of some person. Illinois v. Hasenwinkle, 232 Ill. 228.
The letters "J. P." indicate the office of justice of the peace. Rowley v. Berrian, 12 Ill. 200.
These characters are understood to be an abbreviation of the term "justice of the peace," and are in common use, clearly indicating that that office is intended. Shattuck v. People, 5 Ill. 481.
"The appointment of a jailer is discretionary with the sheriff, and when appointed, he is but the deputy of the sheriff, and accountable to the sheriff." Goff г. Douglas County, 132 Ill. 323, citing Scibert v. Logan County, 63 Ill. 156; Union County v. Patton, 63 Ill. 458.
Under the State Civil Service Act, considered in connection with the Appropriation Act of 1913, a janitor whose pay is provided for in such act is an employee in the classified service and not a common laborer. The People v. Stevenson, 272 Ill. 219.
A round ball containing an explosive composition. Consolidated, etc., Co. v. Koehl, 190 Ill. 147.
"The statutes of jeofails are so called from j'ay faillé, an expression used by the pleader of former days when he perceived a slip in his proceeding." Stephen Pleading, C. I. 93, note (i), citing 3 Bla. Com. 407; Termes de Ley.
The acquittal or conviction of a person accused of a crime by a tribunal which is wanting in jurisdiction and authority to adjudicate and render a valid judgment in the premises does not constitute a bar to the further prosecution of the accused, and jeopardy does not attach at any stage in such a proceeding. Paulsen v. The People, 195 Ill. 514.
The trial and jeopardy begin when the accused has been arraigned and the jury empaneled and sworn. May on Crim. Law, sec. 117. Even after the jury has been sworn, the trial completed and the cause submitted to the jury, if for good cause, such as failure to agree, sickness of a juror or the expiration of the term of court, the judge should discharge the jury without a verdict, the prisoner could not plead a former jeopardy to a second trial for such offense. State v. Vaughan, 29 Iowa 286; State v. Woodson, 50 Ind. 487; Simmons v. United States, 142 U. S. 148; O'Donnell v. The People, 224 Ill. 222, 223.
Jeopardy is the situation of a prisoner when a trial jury is impaneled and sworn to try his case upon a valid indictment or information. To put him twice in jeopardy, he must be again put upon his trial for the same offense, before a 813
so as to empower one railroad to condemn part of the right of way of an existing road for the purpose of constructing a new railroad thereon longitudinally with the one already existing. Illinois C. R. Co. v. Chicago B. & N. R. Co., 122 Ill. 483.
"If the terms, 'joined to and immediately connected with' [in a statute defining arson], both refer to the position of the buildings, and not to the uses to which they are applied, as is probably correct, then each helps to define the other, and to show that both were used, as well as the words 'part of the dwelling-house,' so as, by an accumulation of words of nearly the same meaning, to secure the construction which each phrase was intended to have, an actual contact." Peverelly v. People, 3 Park Cr. R. 72.
JOINDER IN ERROR.
A joinder in error is equivalent to a demurrer to the assignments of error, and raises a question of law whether there are such errors in the record as the assignments of error allege. Austin v. Bainter, 40 Ill. 82; Farwell v. Sturges, 165 Ill. 252; Cass v. Duncan, 260 Ill. 228; Tobias v. Tobias, 193 Ill. App. 98.
The word "joint" means united or combined. Schumaker v. Edington, 152 Ia.
A joint adventure may be defined as an association of two or more persons to carry out a single business enterprise for profit. Fletcher v. Fletcher, 206 Mich. 153.
While it is true that, at common law, co-adventurers in an enterprise were recognized in courts only when the element of partnership was disclosed and upon proof of the essentials of a partnership, this is not the law at the present time, and, although courts in modern times do