{ "id": 3431028, "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Christ Nolan, Plaintiff in Error", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Nolan", "decision_date": "1911-04-19", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "351", "last_page": "353", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "250 Ill. 351" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "136 Cal. 127", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal.", "case_ids": [ 2027941 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal/136/0127-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 N. C. 83", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8685329 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/73/0083-01" ] }, { "cite": "148 Ill. 70", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3060428 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "211" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/148/0070-01" ] }, { "cite": "234 Ill. 391", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5640714 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/234/0391-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 353, "char_count": 5484, "ocr_confidence": 0.72, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.4944094832684205e-07, "percentile": 0.8088656906252063 }, "sha256": "9d49e07b53e9cfacd93bbc61bffc0eb841b194cf80b06a27f88da8a980334dc8", "simhash": "1:bceae0f142358afa", "word_count": 954 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:19:10.893321+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, vs. Christ Nolan, Plaintiff in Error." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Carter\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nSidney Campbell, Robert Boyd, Frank Noonan and the plaintiff in error, Christ Nolan, were indicted at the September term, 1907, of the criminal court of Cook county for robbing Maurice A. Schenick, on the 13th day of August, 1907, of \u201cone pin of the value of $400.\u201d Noonan was acquitted, and Campbell, Boyd and the plaintiff in error were found guilty under said indictment. The case as to Campbell was considered by this court in People v. Camp bell, 234 Ill. 391. The facts as to the robbery are sufficiently set out in that opinion and need not be re-stated here.\nIt is contended that the property is not sufficiently described in the indictment to comply with section 9 of article 2 of the constitution, which provides that \u201cthe accused shall have the right * * * to demand the nature and cause of the accusation,\u201d etc.; and it is further contended that there is a variance between the proof and the indictment, the latter describing the property as \u201cone pin,\u201d while in the evidence it is called a \u201cdiamond stud,\u201d a \u201cstud solitaire with a screw\u201d or \u201cspiral.\u201d The gist of the offense of robbery is the force or intimidation, and the taking from the person, against his will, of a thing of value belonging to him. In such case it is not necessary or material to describe accurately or prove the particular identity or value of the property taken, further than to show it was the property of the person assaulted or in his care, and had a value. (Burke v. People, 148 Ill. 70; Schroeder v. People, 196 id. 211.) The words \u201cpin\u201d and \u201cstud\u201d were both used in referring to this identical property in People v. Campbell, supra, and no question was raised, either by counsel or the court, that the property was not properly described as \u201cone pin\u201d in,the indictment or that the tenns \u201cpin\u201d and \u201cstud\u201d could not be used interchangeably. Webster defines a pin as \u201can ornament * * * fastened to the clothing by a pin; a piece of wood, metal, etc., generally cylindrical, used * * * as a support by which one article may be suspended from another.\u201d (New Int. Dict.; see, also, Standard Dict.) In Rex v. Moore, 1 Leach, 335, an ornament was described in the indictment as \u201cone diamond pin.\u201d In commenting on this case in 2 Russell on Crimes (6th ed. p. 88,) the author describes this ornament as \u201ca heavy diamond pin, with a cork-screw stalk twisted in a lady\u2019s hair.\u201d In this case the diamond ornament was fastened to or suspended from the shirt by a cork-screw piece of metal. Manifestly, under the authorities cited the property in question was correctly described as a pin. This question was not raised on the trial below by plaintiff in error or his counsel. Evidently he was not misled as to the property described in the indictment. An indictment for robbery sufficiently describes the property taken if it enables the jury to identify the chattels stolen with those referred to in the indictment. State v. Burke, 73 N. C. 83; State v. Sanders, 14 N. Dak. 203; People v. Richards, 136 Cal. 127; 34 Cyc. 1804.\nWe find no reversible error in the record. The judgment of the criminal court will be affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Carter" }, { "text": "Mr. Justice Cartwright,\ndissenting:\nA stud is not a pin, either in common parlance or according to any lexicographer. It is defined as \u201ca detachable, button-like device made in various forms, to be inserted through one or more button-holes or eyelets and serve as a fastener, for ornament, etc.\u201d (Webster\u2019s New Int. Dict.) In King v. Moore, 1 Leach, 335, the indictment was for robbery, and the only question raised or considered was whether the talcing was with sufficient force to constitute that crime. The ornament consisted of seven buttons of peculiar brilliancy, fixed on a long silver screw-stock of considerable weight, which was very deeply twisted into the hair of the owner, and her hair was strongly craped all around it. It was not a stud and bore no resemblance to one, and while the question whether it was a pin was not considered, the fact that a part of an ornament is not straight, or is bent or curved for greater security, would not change its character, provided it is, in fact, a pin.", "type": "dissent", "author": "Mr. Justice Cartwright," }, { "text": "Mr. Justice Vickers :\nI concur in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Cartwright.", "type": "concurrence", "author": "Mr. Justice Vickers :" } ], "attorneys": [ "Louis Greenberg, and John E. Tyrrell, for plaintiff in error.", "W. H. Stead, Attorney General, John E. W. Wayman, State\u2019s Attorney, and Fred H. Hand, (Thomas Marshall, and Claude E. Smith, of counsel,) for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Christ Nolan, Plaintiff in Error.\nOpinion filed April 19, 1911\nRehearing denied June 8, 1911.\n1. Criminal law\u2014indictment for robbery need not accurately describe article taken. The gist of the offense of robbery is the force or intimidation and the taking from the person of another, against his will, of a thing of value belonging to him or in his custody, and it is not essential that the indictment shall accurately describe the article taken.\n2. Same\u2014an indictment for robbery describing article taken as \u201cone pin of the value of $400\u201d is sufficient. An indictment for robbery which describes the article taken as \u201cone pin of the value of $400\u201d is sufficient to sustain a conviction under evidence describing the article taken as a \u201cdiamond stud,\u201d or a \u201cstud solitaire with a screw\u201d or \u201cspiral.\u201d\nCartwright and Vickers, JJ., dissenting.\nWrit of Error to the Criminal Court of Cook county; the Hon. Albert C. Barnes, Judge, presiding.\nLouis Greenberg, and John E. Tyrrell, for plaintiff in error.\nW. H. Stead, Attorney General, John E. W. Wayman, State\u2019s Attorney, and Fred H. Hand, (Thomas Marshall, and Claude E. Smith, of counsel,) for the People." }, "file_name": "0351-01", "first_page_order": 351, "last_page_order": 353 }