{
  "id": 4857506,
  "name": "The Wabash, St. Louis and Pacific Railway Company v. The People, etc.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co. v. People",
  "decision_date": "1883-04-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "448",
  "last_page": "450",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "12 Ill. App. 448"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "27 Ill. 74",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5247746
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/27/0074-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "29 Ill. 286",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 260,
    "char_count": 3779,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.576,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.60069884866649e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3509355178622383
    },
    "sha256": "626d53bf9b9711c28711b4dbf8bd8d0199a33eb645ab80e0576202d2b6005973",
    "simhash": "1:1861cc8b843d7bd4",
    "word_count": 666
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:05:21.386693+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The Wabash, St. Louis and Pacific Railway Company v. The People, etc."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Wall, J.\nThe plaintiff in error was indicted under Secs. 221 and 222 of the Criminal Code. The former section provides that it is a public nuisance to encroach upon or obstruct any street, etc., and the latter section \"imposes the punishment for erecting or continuing any such nuisance.\nThe indictment avers that at, etc., and on,' etc., the defendant did unlawfully continue a certain nuisance, whether public or not is not stated, to wit, one railroad track upon a certain street, naming it, which track had been laid by another corporation, naming it, on, etc., and by then and there continuing said track did then and there continue an obstruction on said street. It is not directly averred that the track was an obstruction to tlife street, and there is nothing but the mere conclusion of the pleader from which it can be so inferred. The offense denounced by the statute is the obstruction of a street, not the mere building and continuing of a railroad track which may or may not amount to an obstruction.\nA railroad track in a street is not necessarily, per se, a public nuisance. Angell on Highways, Sec. 32, and cases there cited; Murphy v. City of Chicago, 29 Ill. 286. Hor can it be said as a matter of law that it is an obstruction. On the trial the prosecution introduced evidence to prove that the street was materially obstructed at the point in question by one or more of the defendant\u2019s tracks, though at certain points further up, in the more busy portion of \u2018\"the street, it seemed the track was so laid as to llave causfed no'serious objection\u2014 thus conceding the necessity of proving more than the mere presence of the track in the street.\nEvery fact and circumstance stated iu an indictment must be laid positively; it can not be stated by way of recital, nor by way of argument or inference; the allegations must be in words clear, direct, and not argumentative or inferential. Archbold Criminal Pleading, Sec. 54; Bishop Criminal Procedure, Vol. 1, Sec. 508.\nTested by these well-settled rules of criminal pleading, we are of opinion the indictment was imperfect, and that the motion to quash should have been sustained. The judgment is reversed and cause remanded.\n\u00a1Reversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Wall, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. Samuel P. Wheeler, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Mr. James M. Damron and Mr. D. T. Linegar, and Messrs. Mulkey & Leek, for defendant in error;"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The Wabash, St. Louis and Pacific Railway Company v. The People, etc.\n1. Railroad track not, per se, a public nuisance. \u2014 A railroad track in a street is not necessarily, per se, a public nuisance. Nor can it be said, as a matter of law, that it is an obstruction.\n2. Defective indictment. \u2014 Where an indictment under sections 221 and 222 of the Criminal Code did not directly aver that the railroad track in question was an obstruction to the street. Held, That the indictment was not good.\n3. Pleading. \u2014 Every fact and circumstance stated in an indictment must be laid positively. They can not be stated by way of recital, nor by way of argument or inference; the allegations must be in words clear, direct, and not argumentative or inferential.\nError to the Circuit Conrt of Alexander county; the Hon. David J. Baker, Judge, presiding.\nOpinion filed April 13, 1883.\nMr. Samuel P. Wheeler, for plaintiff in error.\nMr. James M. Damron and Mr. D. T. Linegar, and Messrs. Mulkey & Leek, for defendant in error;\nthat no greater degree of certainty is required in an indictment than is required in a declaration, cited 1 Chitty on Pl. 234; Gould on Pl. Ch. 3, \u00a7 53.\nAs to degree of proof required .of a material fact pleaded under a videlicet: Gould on Pl. Ch. 3, \u00a7 35; 1 Chitty on Pl. 317; Grimwood v. Barrit, 6 T. R. 461; Dakin\u2019s Case, 2 Saund. 291; 1 Bishop on Criminal Procedure, 406.\nAn indictment which concludes \u201c contrary to the form of the statute,\u201d etc.,.is a prosecution under, the statute and not at common law: Town of Paris v. The People, 27 Ill. 74."
  },
  "file_name": "0448-01",
  "first_page_order": 444,
  "last_page_order": 446
}