{
  "id": 3025862,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Peter Tuhl, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Tuhl",
  "decision_date": "1918-06-10",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,994",
  "first_page": "377",
  "last_page": "378",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "211 Ill. App. 377"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 158,
    "char_count": 1861,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.543,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2978743631754248e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6214833374455422
    },
    "sha256": "a518477597c4d895416127218b3beb9fd346ab07516a34d7fa0b4d5fb548172d",
    "simhash": "1:067a693899af2ad8",
    "word_count": 327
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:44:38.810297+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. Peter Tuhl, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Holdom\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Holdom"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Harry P. Gabel and R. C. Merrick, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Maclay Hoyne and Edward E. Wilson, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Peter Tuhl, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 23,994.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Howard Hates, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1918.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 10, 1918.\nStatement of the Case.\nProsecution by the People of the State of Illinois, plaintiff, against Peter Tuhl, defendant, for \u201clarceny of the value of $5.\u201d From a judgment sentencing defendant to a term of one year in the house of correction and fining him $25 and costs, defendant brings error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Criminal law, \u00a7 497 \u2014 when assumed, that corporation exists with initials stated in information. In a criminal prosecution for larceny of \u201cthe personal goods and property of the P. C. C. and St. L. R. R. Co.,\u201d as charged in the information, where there is no evidence before the court on appeal and only the statutory record has been filed, it will be assumed that there is a corporation bearing such initials.\n2. Larceny, \u00a7 41* \u2014 what is essential part of finding. An essential part of the finding in a larceny case, by either court or jury, is the value of the property which is the subject of the larceny, and this cannot be dispensed with, as it is necessary to find the value in order to fix the punishment under the statute.\n3. Larceny, \u00a7 41*- \u2014 when finding 6y court is sufficient. In a larceny case, a finding by the court that the defendant is guilty of \u201cthe criminal offense of larceny to the value of $5,\u201d though in-artificial, is sufficient.\nHarry P. Gabel and R. C. Merrick, for plaintiff in error.\nMaclay Hoyne and Edward E. Wilson, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0377-01",
  "first_page_order": 431,
  "last_page_order": 432
}