{
  "id": 2484730,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, plaintiffs in error v. Peggy Royal, defendant in error",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Royal",
  "decision_date": "1839-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "557",
  "last_page": "558",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Scam. 557"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "2 Ill. 557"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 200,
    "char_count": 2858,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.708,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2660337219887782e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6135983217554383
    },
    "sha256": "5538b855a798f6e513ac767ca92d43b953fba741d9b2c5c7fce2242153230a32",
    "simhash": "1:0ea335f3401f5af9",
    "word_count": 508
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:34:33.017060+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The People of the State of Illinois, plaintiffs in error v. Peggy Royal, defendant in error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Smith, Justice,\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThe only question presented in this case, and requisite to be determined, is, whether a writ of error can be prosecuted by the State, in a criminal case, where the judgment has been in favor of the defendant in the Court below.\nThe case seems to us to admit of but little argument.\nIt is true the defendant has joined in error, and thereby presented the points made by the errors assigned, for the consideration of the Court; but this cannot confer jurisdiction on this Court, in its appellate character, to determine these questions thus made. The Constitution of this State in the 11th Section of the 8th Article, has emphatically declared, \u201c That no person shall for the same offence, be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb,\u201d or in other words, that he shall not be again tried for the same offence, after an acquittal. In the present case, it appears the Circuit Court reversed the judgment of the justice of the peace, and discharged the defendant from custody. It is manifest that in such a case this Court has no jurisdiction over the cause, and that even a reversal of the judgment of the Circuit Court, could not be of practicable utility. We can perceive no useful object to be gained, even in such an event. In the case of The People against Reynolds, reported in 4th Hayward 110, this point was expressly settled; and we think correctly. We are of opinion that the State could not prosecute the writ of error, and consequently that it is compulsory on this Court to dismiss the writ, without a motion for such purpose.\nThe writ of error is dismissed accordingly.\nWrit of error dismissed.\nNote. See The People v. Dill, Ante 257; Bruner v. Ingraham, Ante 556.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Smith, Justice,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James Semple, Attorney General, for the plaintiffs in error.",
      "J. B. Thomas and D. Pricket, for the defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, plaintiffs in error v. Peggy Royal, defendant in error.\nError to Madison.\nThe State cannot prosecute a writ of error in a criminal case.\nA joinder in error will not give the Supreme Court jurisdiction in a case where the Constitution has not conferred it.\nThe provision in Article 8, \u00a7 11, of the Constitution of the State of Illinois, \u201cThat no person shall for the. same offence be twice pul in jeopardy of Ms life or limb,\u201d prohibits the State from bringing a writ of error, where a person accused of a crime is acquitted in the Court below.\nThis was originally a suit before a justice of the peace, for an assault and battery, and taken into the Circuit Court of Madison county by appeal. The Circuit Court, at the October term, 1832, the Hon. Theophilus W. Smith, presiding, reversed the proceedings before the justice, on the ground that the justice had no jurisdiction, the act under which the case was tried, being repugnant to \u00a7 11, Article 8, of the State Constitution.\nJames Semple, Attorney General, for the plaintiffs in error.\nJ. B. Thomas and D. Pricket, for the defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0557-01",
  "first_page_order": 557,
  "last_page_order": 558
}