{
  "id": 2483564,
  "name": "George Baldwin, plaintiff in error v. The People of the State of Illinois, defendants in error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Baldwin v. People",
  "decision_date": "1836-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "304",
  "last_page": "304",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Scam. 304"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "2 Ill. 304"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 169,
    "char_count": 2330,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.692,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3608438240779086e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6354476650955326
    },
    "sha256": "3be675a2112b99a8564b01f0d5c516c16df692a34ffc838736ca55ba51a496b3",
    "simhash": "1:19f4d1cb515ebcbc",
    "word_count": 408
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:34:33.017060+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "George Baldwin, plaintiff in error v. The People of the State of Illinois, defendants in error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Smith, Justice,\ndelivered the opinion of the Court :\nThe plaintiff in\" error was indicted and convicted of larceny, at the October term of the Cook Circuit Court, 1836. The indictment charged him with feloniously stealing and carrying away one horse, the proper goods and chattels of one Ashbel Steele. On the trial, the prisoner\u2019s counsel asked the Court to instruct the jury, \u201cThat if they believed from the evidence that the property stolen was a gelding or a mare, that in point of law the indictment was not sustained,\u201d which the Court refused to do. This is alleged for error. There can be no doubt that the refusal was proper. The term horse, used in the indictment, is descriptive of the genus of the animal, and not of the sex or character changed by artificial means. The animal was still a \u201c horse,\u201d no matter what the sex, and so was it still a horse, although it might be a gelding. The second ground of objection raised, that the Court refused to instruct the jury \u201c That if they believed the animal was riden, driven, or led away, the proof did not sustain the indictment,\u201d is without reason to sustain it, and cannot be entitled \"to consideration. It cannot be expected that the proof is to correspond with the literal interpretation of the words, and that the party, because he did not literally carry away the animal, is not guilty.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook county is hereby affirmed, and the said Court are directed to cause the execution of the judgment and sentence of the said Court to be carried into effect without delay. The defendants in error are also to recover costs in this Court attending the prosecution of the writ of error, and have execution therefor.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Smith, Justice,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. D. Caton, for the plaintiff in error.",
      "James Grant, State\u2019s Attorney, for the defendants in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "George Baldwin, plaintiff in error v. The People of the State of Illinois, defendants in error.\nError to Cook.\nProof that defendant stole a mare or a gelding, will sustain an indictment for stealing a horse.\nAn indictment alleging that the animal was stolen and carried away, will be sustained by proof that it was ridden, driven, or led away.\nThis cause was tried before the Hon. Thomas Ford and a jury. The defendant in the Court below was found guilty, and sentenced to the penitentiary for five years.\nJ. D. Caton, for the plaintiff in error.\nJames Grant, State\u2019s Attorney, for the defendants in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0304-01",
  "first_page_order": 304,
  "last_page_order": 304
}