« ForrigeFortsett »
Butch Vidac, and Michael Hearst, alias Mick-, render their testimony incompetent, as we ey Hearst, were indicted by the grand jury have often held, but where the principal evifor the crime of burglary and larceny. Be- dence is that of accomplices, unless it is so fore the trial of plaintiffs in error began, corroborated by other testimony or circumCampbell and Wade pleaded guilty. Achter- stances as to prove guilt beyond a reasonable berg and Gordon Burton were granted sep- doubt it is subject to suspicion and should arate trials. Hearst was never apprehended. | be acted upon with great caution. People v. Lewis, Vidac, Talbot, and Lee Burton entered Rosenberg, 267 Ill. 202, 108 N. E. 54; Hoyt pleas of not guilty, were tried, and a verdict v. People, 140 Ill. 588, 30 N. E. 315, 16 L. R. of guilty returned. A motion for new trial A. 239; Campbell v. People, 159 Ill. 9, 42 was overruled, and the four defendants were N. E. 123, 50 Am. St. Rep. 134; People v. sentenced to imprisonment in the peniten- Feinberg, 237 Ill. 348, 86 N. E. 584; People tiary, and they have sued out this writ of v. McKinney, 267 Ill. 454, 108 N. E. 652. We error.
do not say whether, in the absence of the [1-3] No one except Campbell and Wade conduct of the trial hereafter referred to, testified positively to plaintiffs in error being the jury would or would not have been warat Crandall and assisting in the commission ranted in finding a verdict of guilty; but we of the crime. None of the train crew identi- have concluded that for reasons given herefied plaintiffs in error except Lee Burton, and after there should be a new trial of this case. as to him the identification was not definite All four of plaintiffs in error testified at and satisfactory. They said they could not the trial and denied having had anything to be positive. Each of plaintiffs in error der do with the crime. Each of them claimed nied on the witness stand that he was at he was not present at the place and time of Crandall when the crime was committed and its commission and introduced witnesses to denied any connection with it. One witness prove his presence elsewhere at the time. testified he met Vidac in the Saragota pool Lewis testified that he had known Frank room, in Peoria, about 7:30 or 8 o'clock the Weber, of Peoria, about ten years; that Webevening of April 11 and the two of them er owned a pool room where he sold soft played pool two hours. Two night policemen drinks. The state, on cross-examination, in Pekin testified they saw and talked with asked Lewis if Weber did not sell some other Vidac in a restaurant in Pekin about 11:30 kinds of drinks and if his place had not been or 12 o'clock the night they heard the train raided by prohibition officers three times was held up. Four witnesses testified Talbot within the last year, to which questions the was in McKenzie's confectionery and soft court sustained objections. The state then drink parlor from about 7 o'clock till 10:30, asked Lewis if he meant to be understood as or later. Four witnesses testified to the saying he had known Weber ten years and whereabouts of Lee Burton the night of April did not know he operated a soft drink parlor 11, and if their testimony was true he could and gambling room in Peoria. The court not have been at Crandall when the crime overruled an objection to the question. Lewis was committed; and the same is true of the was asked by the state why he had been distestimony of three witnesses as to Lewis' charged by the P. & P. U., meaning, as we whereabouts the evening of April 11, if what understand, the Peoria & Pekin Union Terthey testified to is worthy of belief. The tes- minal Railroad Company. An objection was timony of these witnesses for plaintiffs in sustained to the question, and the state then error and the testimony of Campbell and asked if it was not a fact that witness was Wade cannot be reconciled. That of one or discharged at the time a number of cars had the other of the two sets of witnesses was been burglarized, but the court sustained an false. The rule of law is that the jury are objection to the question. Counsel for the the judges of the weight to be given to the state asked the witness where his wife was; testimony of the witnesses, and a reviewing to which the court sustained an objection, court will not substitute its judgment for and then counsel inquired if it was not a fact that of the jury where no prejudicial error his wife had been divorced from him and has been committed and the verdict does not been given the custody of their child, to appear to be the result of passion and prej. which objection was sustained. udice. Without the testimony of Campbell Vidac testified he went to Peoria about and Wade the evidence would not have been 6:30 o'clock the evening of April 11 and sufficient to warrant a verdict of guilty. visited the Saragota pool room and played Those two witnesses admitted they helped pool till about 10:30 and then returned to commit the crime, pleaded guilty, applied for Pekin, where he operated a soft drink par. probation, and, as we understand, were at lor. He was then asked if his place had not liberty under bail at the time of the trial. I been raided twice by federal officers. An Independent of any hope they had that by objection to the question was overruled, and pleading guilty to the crime of burglary, Vidac answered it had. He was then asked only, they might be leniently dealt with by if he was then under indictment in the fedthe state (of which there is some evidence), eral court for the unlawful sale of alcohol, they admitted they were accomplices of plain and answered he was. He was also asked if tiffs in error in the crime. That fact did not he was not under bond in the circuit court of
(145 N.E.) Tazewen county for the unlawful sale of examination he was asked if he was present liquor, and answered he was. After he had in the Peoria county circuit court three answered, his counsel objected and moved to weeks before, at the trial of McKenzie's son. have the answers stricken, and the court or. On objection made, the court stated he could dered the same stricken.
not see the point of it, and sustained the On cross-examination Lee Burton was ask- objection. Thereupon counsel for the state ed who was on his bond, to which the court asked the witness if it was not true he was sustained an objection. Burton testified he an alibi witness for McKenzie's son when he had for one year prior to March 1, 1923, been was tried for robbing a Standard Oil station employed by the P. & P. U. as a special in Peoria, and the court again sustained an agent. He was asked on cross-examination objection. 'if he had not been discharged because of [4, 5] In no case we can recall have we robberies in the East Peoria yards, and an ever sustained a conviction which depended swered he had not. He was then asked if he principally on the testimony of accomplices was not discharged, and said no; he was where the record shows such improper conlaid off. Counsel for the state inquired if duct during the progress of the trial. It does that was not a gentlemanly way of discharg. not follow that because a witness was an acing him, whereupon counsel for the defense complice his testimony should not be given objected “to the comments of counsel," and any weight, but when the principal evidence the court sustained the objection. Burton in is the testimony of accomplices, which we his testimony spoke of having seen Talbot have always held should be received with in Ike McKenzie's place of business. Wit- caution, the record should be fairly free from ness said McKenzie's business was confec- prejudicial error, and especially so from paltionery; he sold candy; witness could not pable efforts of the state to prejudice the desay whether he sold soft drinks; said there fendants with the jury by attempting to drag was a bar there. He was asked if it was not into the case matters wholly foreign and irthe same kind of a bar they had in the old relevant. Many questions asked plaintiffs in saloon, and if the place was not a saloon be- error and their witnesses on cross-examinafore the adoption of the Eighteenth Amend- tion had no tendency to prove their guilt of ment, and if the furniture was not the same the crime charged, but the only tendency was as it was then, to all of which the court sus- to prejudice plaintiffs in error with the jury tained objections.
and influence them to return a verdict of On cross-examination of Talbot the state guilty on general principles. The state must asked him if he was the same Louis Talbot have known it was not competent to ask who was indicted in Peoria county in 1921 plaintiffs in error or witnesses if they had for robbing a Standard Oil Company station, not been indicted for other crimes, or the to which an objection was sustained. He many other questions, some of which we have was also asked if he was not the Lewis Tal- set out, which had no tendency to prove the bot at whose place three barrels of alcohol | issue being tried. The only effect of such an were found that had been stolen from the examination would be to cause the jury to Rock Island depot. An objection was over- believe plaintiffs in error were bad men and ruled, and witness answered there were likely to commit such a crime as the indictthree barrels taken from his place --not from ment charged. Men on trial for a particular the Rock Island Railroad Company; they crime are not required to defend themselves were taken by Tazewell county officers. He against every possible insinuation which may was then asked if he was the same Louis Tal- be made against them, nor are witnesses to bot in whose possession a washing machine be subjected to every insinuation and asperwas found that had been stolen from an Illi- sion in no way connected with the issue being nois concern, and answered, 'No.' Asked if he tried. It was held in People v. Newman, 261 had a washing machine he said he had, and Ill. 11, 103 N. E. 589, that the law does not he was then asked if the numbers on it had provide one method for trying innocent pernot been so disfigured that it could not be sons and another for trying guilty persons. identified. Counsel for the defense then in. In that case the court said: terposed an objection, and it was sustained. Joseph Day, a witness for Talbot, testified by jury on competent evidence and to have his
"The plaintiff in error had a right to a trial he saw Talbot in Ike McKenzie's place in witness appear without any illegal disparagePeoria the night of April 11. The state then ment of his credibility. The question is not asked the witness, repeating substantially what, with the aspersions against the witness the same question three times in succession, wrongfully appearing in the record, we may whether he had not, two or three weeks be think of the guilt or innocence of the plaintiff fore, been an alibi witness in the Peoria in error, but what would the jury have done if county circuit court for McKenzie's son, to the case had been submitted to them without all of which questions the court sustained will not be reversed where the evidence clear
those aspersions. The rule that a judgment objections.
ly establishes the defendant's guilt does not jusJoe Stafford testified for the defense that tify the total disregard of the rights of a pris. he saw Talbot in McKenzie's place the nightoner upon his trial for an alleged crime. He of April 11 from 8 till 11 o'clock. On cross still has a right to be tried by the law of the
land, and a conviction secured by a trial in to- ,2. Schools and school districts 42(2)-Distal disregard of that law cannot be sustained.” trict held not invalid as not compact and con
tiguous. The subject has received the consideration
Normal community high school district No. of this court in several cases, some of which 348, in McLean county, held not invalid, as not are People v. Green, 292 Ill. 351, 127 N. E. compact and contiguous, because of its size, re50; People v. Decker, 310 Ill. 234, 141 N. E. moteness of children from schoolhouse, or lack 710; People v. Brocamp, 307 Ill. 448, 138 N. of facilities for traveling to it, though small E. 728; People v. King, 276 111. 138, 114 N. E. number of children therein will encounter some 601 ; People v. Reed, 287 III. 606, 122 N. E difficulties, and possibly interruptions, in at
tending school because of road conditions. 806; and People v. Newman, supra.
 It is true, the court sustained objec-3. Schools and school districts Om 42(2)-Distions to most of the improper examination of trict held not invalid as invading other high plaintiffs in error and their witnesses, but school centers. the improper examinations occurred too Territory belonging to other high school often during the trial and questions were so centers held not invaded, by creation of Normal frequently repeated after objections had been community high school district No. 348, in Mcsustained that the only remedy for such con- Lean county, to such degree as to render it in
valid. duct, and the only fair treatment of the record, is a reversal of the judgment so that a
Appeal from Circuit Court, McLean Counfair and orderly trial may be had under the law. People v. Green, supra. This court is ty; Edward Barry, Judge. reluctant to reverse a judgment of conviction Quo warranto by the People, on the relain any case, but it should be understood that tion of Guy Garrison and others, against T. men charged with a crime are entitled to a H. Keys and others, as Board of Education fair trial according to law. Where that has of Normal Community High School District been denied them, guilt must be so conclu- No. 348, in McLean County. From judgment sively proved that no other verdict than one of ouster, defendants appeal. Reversed. of guilty could reasonably have been return
R. F. Dunn and W. W. Whitmore, both of ed by the jury to warrant a reviewing court in sustaining the conviction. It is not to be
Bloomington, for appellants. understood that we intend to hold the proof Fifer, Bohrer & Riley and Morrissey, Sulli
Lester H. Martin, State's Atty., Joseph W. in this case, in the absence of serious prej. Ivan & Rust, all of Bloomington, for appeludicial error, would not warrant a verdict
lees. of guilty. What we hold is that under the state of the record to which we have called attention it is our duty to award plaintiffs
HEARD, J. The circuit court of McLean in error a new trial, at which they may pre- tion of Guy Garrison and others, to file an
county granted leave to the people, on relasent their defense to the jury and have its information in quo warranto against the merits, if any, determined free from the in- board of education of Normal community fluence of improper attempts to go into other matters than the guilt of the accused of the high school district No. 348, in McLean coun
ty. crime charged in the indictment. That was
The petition alleged that the district the issue proper to be tried, and the testimo- braced territory belonging to other commu
was not compact and contiguous and emny should have been reasonably confined to nity centers. After much pleading a judgthat issue.
ment was entered in the circuit court upon The judgment is reversed, and the cause the pleadings, ousting appellants from the remanded for a new trial. Reversed and remanded.
office of members of the board of education of such district and assessing a fine of one dollar and costs on each of the appellants,
from which judgment an appeal was taken (313 Ill. 234)
to this court, and the judgment of ouster was PEOPLE ex rel. GARRISON et al. v. KEYS reversed for erroneous rulings of the court et al. (No. 16120.)
upon the pleadings. People v. Keys, 310 Ill. (Supreme Court of Illinois. Oct. 28, 1924.) 198, 141 N. E. 722. The case having been re
docketed in the circuit court, and the plead1. Schools and school districts ww 42(2)-Dis. ings settled in accordance with the mandate trict not unlawful because student may oc. of this court, it was heard before the court, casionally miss school on account of road
a jury having been waived, and the court conditions.
again found the issues for relators, against That student may occasionally miss school because of road conditions does not render dis- the validity of the district, and entered judg. trict unlawful, though creation of district which ment of ouster, with fine and costs, against will not permit children to travel to school appellants, from which judgment this appeal from their homes in reasonable time with rea is prosecuted. sonable comfort, because of its size or road The district as organized embraces 44 secconditions, is not authorized.
tions, almost rectangular in shape, and is
For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
(145 N.E.) 84 miles long by 6 miles wide. The district i would afford the same conveniences to all the has operated a 4-year accredited high school children to attend the school, and it cannot continuously since the fall of 1920 in a rent- be said that, because a student may occaed school building located in the town of sionally miss school on account of road conNormal, which has a population of 5,143. ditions, a school district does not, therefore, This school building is distant 7 miles from comply with the law. People v. Rote, 312 the northeast and northwest corners of the Ill. 99, 143 N. E. 492. As said in People v. district, 412 miles from the north line, 5 Farran, 311 Ill. 87, 142 N. E. 468, no doubt miles from the southeast corner and 3142 a small number of the children in the dismiles from the southwest corner. The en-trict here under consideration will encounter tire district outside of the city of Normal is some difficulties, and possibly interruptions, composed of level or slightly rolling agricul- in attending the school, but neither the size tural lands. There are no steep hills, lakes, of the district, the remoteness of any of the timber tracts, impassable morasses or un- children from the school house, nor their bridged or overflowing water courses within facilities for traveling to it are of such a the district. At the time of the trial two character as would justify holding that it is completed paved roads traversed the dis- not compact and contiguous, or that it viotrict, and a third was under construction, lates the constitutional limitation on the which according to schedule was to be com- power to create school districts. pleted in July, 1924. No part of the district  It is contended that portions of the as organized is more than 234 miles distant district in question are embraced within othfrom a paved road. In addition to these er community centers. The district in quespaved roads there are about 87 miles of dirt tion was constructed wholly out of nonhighroad, about 18 miles of which are oiled, laid school communities. At only two points does out largely on the section and half-section the district touch other school districts in lines. Six rural mail carriers delivering mail which high schools are conducted. At the throughout this district were called as wit-northeast corner for 18 of a mile the district nesses upon the trial, one of whom had not adjoins the Towanda common school district, missed a day's delivery in 1923, one of whom which maintains a 4-year high school as a had missed 12 days in 20 years, and the part of its district school course, although not others missed not to exceed 5 days in any one organized into a high school district under year on account of bad roads. The dirt any statute. The evidence does not show roads are the average Illinois dirt roads, that Towanda is the community center, for which get muddy when it rains, and are very school purposes, of any of the territory emsoft in the spring when the snow melts, and braced within the district. On the south the the frost comes out of the ground, but the district for about 212 miles is adjacent to the evidence does not show that at any season city of Bloomington, a city of about 28,000 of the year are they impassable for travel on inhabitants, and the evidence shows that the horseback or with horse and buggy.
cities of Bloomington and Normal are so conIn People v. Standley (No. 15016), 144 N. I nected that there is no visible line of demarE. 355, this court said:
cation between the two cities. The evidence "Every reasonable presumption will be in- also shows that, while some of the inhabidulged in favor of the validity of a school dis- tants of the town of Normal go to Bloomingtrict established by authority of the legislative ton for business, religious, and social purdepartment of the government, and the courts poses, Normal is their community center for will not hold the district invalid, unless it school purposes, as they for years have been clearly appears from the evidence that chil- in Normal school district No. 144, within the dren of school age residiug in the district can- limits of which the present community bigh not reasonably avail themselves of the privi
school is conducted. leges of the school."
The evidence in this
case does not show that, in establishing the [1, 2] While it is not a lawful exercise of district in question, territory naturally bethe constitutional power to create a district longing to other high school centers has been which on account of its size or road condi- invaded to that degree which renders the tions will not permit the children to attend school district invalid. school by traveling from their homes to the The judgment entered by the circuit court school in a reasonable length of time and finding this district invalid and ousting apwith a reasonable degree of comfort (People pellants from their offices is not warranted v. Young, 301 Ill. 67, 133 N. E. 693), it is im- by the evidence, and it is therefore reversed. possible to create a district of any size which Judgment reversed.
(313 Ill. 321)
tive, judicial, and executive power on voters of PEOPLE ex rel. TAYLOR et al. v. CAMARGO detaching district. COMMUNITY CONSOL, SCHOOL
6. Schools and school districts 33–School DIST. NO. 158. (No. 16004.)
Law held not to authorize detachment of ter(Supreme Court of Illinois. Oct. 28, 1924.) ritory from consolidated district, so as to
leave remaining territory not contiguous. 1. Schools and school district en 22-Act en School Law (Laws 1919, p. 904), as amend. abling original districts to detach themselves ed on June 30, 1923 (Law8 1923, p. 587), &S from consolidated district held not void as 84a, 84b, 84c, 840, 84g, and particularly lattaking property without due process. ter section, construed as whole, does not per
School Law (Laws 1919, p. 904), as amend mit detachment of a former school district ed on June 30, 1923 (Laws 1923, p. 587), en- from a community consolidated district in such abling original school districts in community manner as to leave remaining territory of conconsolidated school district to detach them- solidated district in separate bodies or not selves from latter district in manner provided contiguous, within section 84a. in sections 84g, subd. 4, and section 841, held 7. Schools and school districts 22—School not violative of Const, art. 2, § 2, as taking
Law, authorizing former school district to territory from consolidated district without
vote on detachment from consolidated disdue process.
trict, held not void in failing to give detailed 2. Statutes 79(2), 96(1) Constitutional
directions for election. prohibition against local or special laws as School Law (Laws 1919, p. 904), as amendto management of schools, or granting spe- ed on June 30, 1923 (Laws 1923, p. 587), $ cial privileges, construed.
84g, subd. 4, which permits former common Const. art. 4, 822, prohibiting local or school district to detach itself from community special laws for management of common consolidated school district by voting on that schools, or granting any special or exclusive question at an election called by county superprivilege, immunity, or franchise, does not ap- intendent, is not void as containing no specific ply to all school laws and agencies adopted in directions for holding such election. providing a system of free schools, but relates merely to management of common schools in Appeal from Circuit Court, Douglas Coun. imparting instruction.
ty; Franklin H. Boggs, Judge. 3. Statutes Ow79(2)—Act permitting detach Information in nature of quo warranto by
ment of certain territory from consolidated the People, on the relation of Charles C. Tayschool district held not void, because denying lor and others, against the Camargo Commuprivilege to other territory.
nity Consolidated School District No. 158. School Law (Laws 1919, p. 904), as amend- From a decree sustaining a demurrer and ed on June 30, 1923 (Laws 1923, p. 587), which by section 84g, subd. 4, and section 84i, en
dismissing information, relators appeal. Reables inhabitants of territory once forming versed and remanded, with directions. common school district to be detached from
Robert F. Cotton, State's Atty., of Tuscola community consolidated school district, held not (Green & Palmer, Henry I. Green, and Oris void because denying such privilege to inhabit. Barth, all of Urbana, of counsel), for appelants of territory not previously constituting
lants. entire common school district; classification not being unreasonable.
John H. Chadwick, of Tuscola, for appel
lee. 4. Schools and school districts mo 224Statute
enabling certain territory to detach itself from consolidated district held not void, as
DUNN, J. The Camargo Community Confailing to provide efficient system of com
solidated School District No. 158, in the mon schools.
county of Douglas, was organized, consisting School Law (Laws 1919, p. 904), as amend of school districts Nos. 21, 53, and 54 and ed on June 30, 1923 (Laws 1923, p. 587), other territory. On August 18 1923, sepawhich in section 84g, subd. 4, and section 84i, rate elections were held in each of the three enables territory which once formed common original districts, Nos. 21, 53, and 54, pursuschool district to detach itself from com- ant to the fourtb paragraph of section 84g munity consolidated school district, does not, of the School Law as amended on June 30, as a matter of law, violate Const. art. 8, § 1, 1923 (Laws 1923, p. 587), on the question of relative to maintenance of efficient system of
detaching those districts, respectively from common schools.
the consolidated district. The vote in each 5. Constitutional law m50—Act' enabling ter district was in favor of detachment. On
ritory to detach itself from consolidated January 14 1924, pursuant to leave granted, school district held not void, as conferring the state s attorney of Douglas county filed legislative, judicial, and executive powers on
in the circui court an information in the voters of territory.
nature of quo warranto, on the relation of School Law (Laws 1919, p. 904), as amended on June 30, 1923 (Laws 1923, p. 587), the directors of the three original districts which in section 84g, subd. 4, and section 841, and of two taxpayers and landowners withpermits certain territory to detach itself from in each district, alleging in separate counts community consolidated school district, is not the detachment of each one of the original violative of Const, art 3, as conferring legisla-districts, and charging that the community
For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexen