{
  "id": 2554277,
  "name": "James Ryan v. The People of the State of Illinois",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ryan v. People",
  "decision_date": "1903-12-21",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 10.604",
  "first_page": "484",
  "last_page": "485",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "111 Ill. App. 484"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "2 Gilm. 540",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Gilm.",
      "case_ids": [
        2559738
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "551"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/7/0540-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 223,
    "char_count": 2986,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.559,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08212505825629217
    },
    "sha256": "b65d125127761196d8b3eb433fe63aec57b85ff6c0a5965e7eda772fad13df39",
    "simhash": "1:e532ada908738599",
    "word_count": 533
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:54:24.452659+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "James Ryan v. The People of the State of Illinois."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Ball\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nMarch 31, 1897, in the Criminal Court of Cook Countv, Byan was indicted for larceny. He pleaded not guilty an d was tried in April of that year. During the trial he absconded, but by consent of his counsel the hearing continued. The jury returned a verdict finding him guilty of petty larceny. A motion for new trial was interposed. A capias was issued for his arrest, which was returned as \u201c not found.\u201d July 19,1898, the cause was stricken from the docket with leave to reinstate. March 27, 1902, the case was- replaced upon the trial docket. On the 29th day of the same month the motion for a new trial was overruled, to which plaintiff in error excepted.\" A motion in arrest of judgment was entered, and overruled, and an exception taken to the action of the court in that regard. The next step in the record is a mittimus addressed jointly to the sheriff of Cook County and to the superintendent of the house of correction in the city of Chicago, directing that Byan be confined in said house of correction for the term of one year. In this writ is recited what purports to have been the sentence of the court. Byan brings the case to this court by writ of error.\nThe record is fatally defective in this, that it does not contain a final judgment order. The primary object of a record is to justify and to declare the punishment. Hence, it must state affirmatively the steps which make the sentence good, and then the sentence completes the record.\nOur Supreme Court in 1845 decided that \u201c In a criminal case, after the caption stating the time and place of holding the court, the record should consist of the indictment properly endorsed, as found by the grand jury; the arraignment of the accused, his plea, the impaneling of the traverse jury, their verdict, and the judgment of the court. This, in general, is all that the record need state.\u201d McKinney v. The People, 2 Gilm. 540, 551.\nThe recital of an alleged final judgment order in the mittimus, under a \u201c whereas,\u201d does not supply the defect. The certificate of the clerk of the Criminal Court that the transcript before us is \u201c a true, perfect and complete copy of the record \u201d is conclusive. Hot finding the judgment order of the court therein, we must hold that such an order does not exist.\nThere being no judgment order, the writ of error is dismissed.\nWrit of error dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Ball"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "C. M. Hardy, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Ho appearance for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "James Ryan v. The People of the State of Illinois.\nGen. No. 10.604.\n' 1. Judgment order\u2014effect of omission of. The record in a criminal case is fatally defective if it omits the final judgment order and this omission is not supplied by the recital of such an order in the mittimus issued in the case.\nIndictment for larceny. Error to the Criminal Court of Cook County; the Hon. Abner Smith, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1903.\nWrit of error dismissed.\nOpinion filed December 21, 1903.\nC. M. Hardy, for plaintiff in error.\nHo appearance for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0484-01",
  "first_page_order": 502,
  "last_page_order": 503
}