{
  "id": 4900808,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Louis DePaepe, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. DePaepe",
  "decision_date": "1917-12-19",
  "docket_number": "No. 11550",
  "first_page": "318",
  "last_page": "319",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "281 Ill. 318"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "225 Ill. 610",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3329685
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/225/0610-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 192,
    "char_count": 2839,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.759,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08,
      "percentile": 0.37761487252731724
    },
    "sha256": "2a94aac4b4b6934aa2297c75250f5d3425fb3572ed84def3f1388370615bedfa",
    "simhash": "1:a6899d817ffc22f5",
    "word_count": 482
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:21:27.620671+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. Louis DePaepe, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Dunn\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis writ of error was sued out to review the judgment of the city court of Pana by which the plaintiff in error was convicted of knowingly receiving stolen goods for his own gain.\nThe judgment must be reversed for the failure to prove the ownership of the stolen goods in John W. Haworth, whom the indictment alleged to be the owner. The thief who stole the goods testified that he broke into a car at Shelbyville and stole forty-eight pairs of shoes,\u2014thirty-six pairs of Martha E. Washington ladies\u2019 slippers and twelve pairs of Honorbuilt men\u2019s shoes,\u2014which he delivered to the plaintiff in error. Haworth testified that he was in the shoe business at Shelbyville and ordered one dozen pairs of men\u2019s wide-toed shoes and two dozen pairs of ladies\u2019 slippers from the F. Mayer Boot and Shoe Company about April 26, 1916, and never received the shipment. He never saw the shoes and does not know that they were in the car broken into in Shelbyville. He produced an invoice purporting to be from the F. Mayer Boot and Shoe Company for forty-eight pairs, dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, April 26, 1916, care C. & E. 1, stating \u201cbalance will follow,\u201d which invoice was erroneously received in evidence over the objection of the plaintiff in error. There was no other evidence of ownership. There was no evidence other than the invoice itself that the goods mentioned had been delivered to the railroad company, or that the shoes stolen from the car had come from the F. Mayer Boot and Shoe Company, or that the goods mentioned in the invoice were Martha E. Washington slippers or Honorbuilt shoes, or that the goods ordered by Haworth were such- shoes. The identity of the shoes and their ownership rested upon conjecture and not upon proof. The ownership of the stolen property is an essential element of the crime and must be proved as averred in the indictment. Aldrich v. People, 225 Ill. 610.\nThe other errors argued are not of sufficient importance to require discussion.\nThe judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Dunn"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Griffith & Phillips, and McDavid & Monroe, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Edward J. Brundage, Attorney General, Harry B. Hers hey, State\u2019s Attorney, and Edward C. Fitch, for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 11550.\n\u2014Reversed and remanded.)\nThe People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Louis DePaepe, Plaintiff in Error.\nOpinion filed December 19, 1917.\nCriminal law\u2014ownership of property must be proved as alleged in indictment for receiving stolen goods. An indictment for receiving stolen property must allege the ownership of the property as an essential element of the crime, and such ownership must be proved as alleged and cannot rest upon conjecture.\nWrit op Error to the City Court of Pana; the Hon. John H. Fornofe, Judge, presiding.\nGriffith & Phillips, and McDavid & Monroe, for plaintiff in error.\nEdward J. Brundage, Attorney General, Harry B. Hers hey, State\u2019s Attorney, and Edward C. Fitch, for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0318-01",
  "first_page_order": 318,
  "last_page_order": 319
}