{
  "id": 2861979,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Henry Jacoby, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Jacoby",
  "decision_date": "1916-02-16",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,817",
  "first_page": "88",
  "last_page": "90",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "198 Ill. App. 88"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 314,
    "char_count": 4697,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.493,
    "sha256": "0521228ad8e860369680e53181de656731765ee00fb60241694e9c34f1935f4d",
    "simhash": "1:8b7ccf1497e5e8dd",
    "word_count": 827
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:11:33.440984+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Henry Jacoby, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Pam\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Pam"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Lee, Buckley & Murphy, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Maclay Hoyne, for defendant in error; Edward E. Wilson, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Henry Jacoby, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 20,817.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\n' Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph E. Ryan, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed February 16, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nInformation by the People of the State of Illinois charging Henry Jacoby with petit larceny. A jury having\u2019 been waived, the trial proceeded to hearing before the court alone, who found defendant guilty as charged, and sentenced him to the House of Correction for three months and to pay a fine of one dollar and costs.\nDefendant seeks a reversal because, as he alleges, there is no proof that he committed the crime of petit larceny as charged.\nDefendant makes the further point, that the amended information was defective in that it was not filed until all the evidence had been heard.\nJ. 0. Kuntz, the complaining witness, testified that while riding on a street car at 35th street in the City of Chicago, on September 11, 1914, he suddenly found that his pocketbook was missing; that he saw defendant jump off the car; that he caused the car to stop as soon as possible, and ran back in the direction the defendant had taken; that when he neared the defendant, he saw him \u201cwith the pocketbook in his hand; that he grabbed him and said, \u201cGive her here,\u201d and that defendant handed him his pocketbook; that he took hold of defendant and inquired for an officer, when one Burgess stepped up and said, \u201cLet me have him,\u201d whereupon Kuntz turned defendant over to Burgess, who, the evidence shows, represented himself to be an officer; that a police officer then arrived on the scene, to whom Kuntz related the incident; that he took defendant into custody, and when he found that Burgess had represented himself to be an officer and in fact was not, arrested him also; that Burgess resisted strenuously; that finally, with the assistance of another officer, the two were arrested.\nDefendant testified that he resided in the vicinity of 35th street, and at the time in question was crossing the street; that just as he reached the middle of the street, he stooped down and picked up a pocketbook, and just as he did so, Kuntz grabbed him; that the \u201cother fellow came running over\u2014the big fellow that was standing on the corner\u201d (Burgess) and that a struggle followed, and that was all he knew; that he was not riding on any car that day. On cross-examination he admitted knowing Burgess.\nBurgess, who also testified, stated that on the night in question he was standing on the corner; that there was a man crossing the street on a run; that \u201che ran right up to this young fellow here\u201d (defendant); that \u201cit seemed like as if he was stooping down, and he (Kuntz) jumped right on his back and he knocked him down, and then four or five colored fellows came along there, and I went over there and recognized this young fellow (defendant) as being a boy that I knew ever since he was a kid;\u201d that he said, \u201cWhat is the matter?\u201d and defendant replied, \u201cI don\u2019t know, this fellow jumped on me;\u201d that he then said, \u201cLet me have him;\u201d that he was merely trying to find out what had happened; that finally defendant said, \u201cWell, it is all right,\u201d and that defendant then handed Kiintz something, hut what it was he did not know. Bnrgess also denied having represented that he was a police officer.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1301 \u2014when judgment presumed to have been based on competent evidence. On a trial without a jury it is presumed on a writ of error that the trial court, in entering judgment, considered only the competent evidence.\n2. Indictment and information, \u00a7 13*\u2014when delay in filing amended information. On a prosecution for petit larceny where the crime is sufficiently charged in the original information, it is not a ground for reversal that an amended information was not filed until all the evidence had been heard.\n3. Criminal law, \u00a7 409*\u2014when point not raised on trial not considered on appeal. An objection to an amended information that it w'as not filed until after the evidence had been heard will not be considered on a writ of error when the point was not raised below.\n4. Larceny, \u00a7 35*\u2014when evidence sufficient to support verdict. On a prosecution for petit larceny, evidence examined and held to support a finding of guilty.\nLee, Buckley & Murphy, for plaintiff in error.\nMaclay Hoyne, for defendant in error; Edward E. Wilson, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vois. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0088-01",
  "first_page_order": 112,
  "last_page_order": 114
}