{
  "id": 5174448,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. William Niemoth, Plaintiff in error",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Niemoth",
  "decision_date": "1926-06-16",
  "docket_number": "No. 17230",
  "first_page": "51",
  "last_page": "53",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "322 Ill. 51"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "9 So. 401",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "So.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "94 S. E. 871",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "case_ids": [
        1958994,
        1958999
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/sc/108/0383-01",
        "/sc/108/0513-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "65 S. E. 15",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "5 So. 576",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "So.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "217 S. W. 29",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "153 S. W. 881",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "case_ids": [
        8295798
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/sw/153/0881-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "188 S. W. 1001",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "case_ids": [
        8254539
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/sw/188/1001-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 324,
    "char_count": 5623,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.752,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.407467415836756e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9595186823633347
    },
    "sha256": "b046ee5b69c6dc9699470973a791778de60c41dbef16ea99183cfa02d6fe26d9",
    "simhash": "1:39c5ea0c821ea0e5",
    "word_count": 992
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:55:50.883675+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. William Niemoth, Plaintiff in error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Thompson\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff in error, William Niemoth, was tried in the municipal court of Chicago upon an information charging that he carried \u201con or about his person certain concealed fire-arms, to-wit: one automatic Winchester shotgun \u2018loaded,\u2019 one automatic Colt\u2019s pistol, thirty-two calibre, \u2018loaded,\u2019 one Colt\u2019s revolver, thirty-eight calibre, \u2018loaded,\u2019 in violation of section 4, Senate Bill 348, in force July 3, 1925,\u201d and was found guilty. He prosecutes this writ of error to reverse the judgment on the ground that the statute is unconstitutional, that the information is insufficient, and that the proof fails to establish the offense charged.\nHarry Reford, a police officer of the city of Chicago, was the only witness called. About 2:3o A. M. August 7, 1925, he and officers O\u2019Day and Foley noticed an automobile parked alongside the curb near the intersection of Fifty-first street and Hoyne avenue, Chicago. Plaintiff in error was sitting in the front seat of the automobile, behind the steering wheel. On the floor of the car back of the front seat they found a Winchester automatic shot-gun, loaded, and a 38-calibre Colt\u2019s revolver. They did not find a gun on the person of plaintiff in error.\nThis prosecution is under section 4 of an act revising the law relating to deadly weapons. (Smith\u2019s Stat. 1925, p. 888.) It provides: \u201cNo person shall carry concealed on or about his person a pistol, revolver or other fire-arm.\u201d \u201cAbout his person\u201d means sufficiently close to the person to be readily accessible for immediate use. A fire-arm is concealed about the person when it is pushed down behind the cushion of an automobile on which the accused is sitting, ( Wagner v. State, \u2014 Tex.\u2014188 S. W. 1001;) when it is lying on the floor of a buggy at the feet of the accused, (DeFriend v. State, \u2014 Tex.\u2014153 S. W. 881;) when it is concealed on the seat of a wagon on which the accused is sitting, (State v. Conley, \u2014 Mo.\u2014217 S. W. 29;) and when it is concealed in a basket carried on the arm of the accused. (Diffey v. State, \u2014 Ala.\u20145 So. 576.) It has been held that a fire-arm is not concealed about the person when it is carried in a closed saddle-bag, (Sutherland v. Commonwealth, \u2014 Va.\u201465 S. E. 15;) when it is carried in a satchel, (State v. Weston, \u2014 S. C. \u2014 94 S. E. 871;) nor when it is lying on the floor of a buggy under a rug. Ladd v. State\u2014Ala.\u20149 So. 401.\nBefore there can be a conviction under the statute prohibiting the carrying of fire-arms concealed on or about the person there must be proof that the fire-arm is carried in such a manner as to give no notice of its presence and in such proximity of the accused as to be within his easy reach and under his control. The proof in this case does not show that the guns lying on the floor of the automobile were where the accused could have reached them without moving from his position in the front seat. There was no proof that the guns belonged to the accused or that he knew they were in the automobile. However desirable it may be to prohibit the carrying of loaded fire-arms in automobiles, this court has no authority to extend the meaning of this statute to cover such offenses. The pernicious practice which the legislature intended by this statute to interdict was the carrying concealed of a gun of a size capable of being concealed on or about the person, in a place so accessible as to allow its immediate use as a deadly weapon when wanted. If plaintiff in error has violated the statute, then every person who places a loaded revolver in his automobile to carry it to a place where he can use it for target practice, hunting or other lawful purpose is guilty of carrying concealed weapons about his person. The evidence does not establish the guilt of plaintiff in error and the judgment must be reversed.\nThe conclusion we have reached on the merits of this case makes it unnecessary to consider the other two questions presented.\nJudgment reversed.\nMr. Chief Justice Stone, dissenting.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Thompson"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James M. Burke, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General, Robert E. Crowe, State\u2019s Attorney, and Merrill E. Wehmhoff, (Edward E. Wilson, of counsel,) for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 17230.\nJudgment reversed.)\nThe People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. William Niemoth, Plaintiff in error.\nOpinion filed June 16, 1926.\n1. Criminal law \u2014 when fire-arm is carried about the person within meaning of act of 1925. In the provision of the act of 1925 that \u201cno person shall carry concealed on or about his person a pistol, revolver or other fire-arm,\u201d the words \u201cabout his person\u201d mean sufficiently close to the person to be readily accessible for immediate use, as the statute is intended to prevent the carrying concealed of a gun of a size capable of being concealed on or about the person, in a place so accessible as to allow its immediate use as a deadly weapon when wanted.\n2. Same \u2014 what is not a violation of act of 1925 against carrying of fire-arms. Before there can be a conviction under the act of 1925 prohibiting the carrying of fire-arms concealed on or about the person, there must be proof that the fire-arm is carried in such manner as to give no notice of its presence and in such proximity to the accused as to be within his easy reach and under his control, and evidence that the defendant carried a shot-gun and revolver on the floor of his automobile, back of the front seat where he was sitting, is not sufficient to warrant a conviction.\nStone, C. J., dissenting.\nWrit of Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. George B. Holmes, Judge, presiding.\nJames M. Burke, for plaintiff in error.\nOscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General, Robert E. Crowe, State\u2019s Attorney, and Merrill E. Wehmhoff, (Edward E. Wilson, of counsel,) for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0051-01",
  "first_page_order": 51,
  "last_page_order": 53
}