#### The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Everett C. Ellison, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 19,586.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Larceny, § 41 * —necessity for finding of value. Whenever the measure or kind of punishment is dependent upon the value of the property stolen, the jury, or court, when the trial is by the court, must find that value as part of the verdict or finding, or a conviction cannot be sustained.

2. Larceny, § 41 * —effect of failure to find value. On an information charging defendant with stealing a watch of the value of fourteen dollars, tried by the court on the waiver of a jury, a conviction cannot be sustained, where the court failed to find the value of the property, since under the statute the extent of the pun*288ishment would depend upon whether the value of the property was over or under fifteen dollars.

*287Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John A. Mahoney, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the October term, 1913.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed March 9, 1914.

Statement of the Case.

Prosecution by The People of the State of Illinois against Everett C. Ellison on information in the Municipal Court of Chicago charging him with the stealing of a watch valued at fourteen dollars. A jury was waived and the court found him guilty, sentencing him to imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of two hundred dollars. From the judgment of conviction, defendant brings error.

James O. O'Brien, for plaintiff in error.

Maclay Hoyne, for defendant in error; Francis E. Hinckley, of counsel.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number.

Mr. Presiding Justice Baker

delivered the opinion of the court.

*2883. Labceny, § 42 * —when fine excessive. Under a.statute prescribing imprisonment in the county jail, or other named places, and a fine of “not exceeding one hundred dollars" where the value of the property stolen is under fifteen dollars, the imposition of a fine of two hundred dollars is erroneous.