{
  "id": 2837982,
  "name": "Andrew Rogers v. The People of the State of Illinois",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rogers v. People",
  "decision_date": "1881-05-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "581",
  "last_page": "584",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "98 Ill. 581"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 336,
    "char_count": 5845,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.55,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.703165762448597e-07,
      "percentile": 0.893021369199517
    },
    "sha256": "e9d231375f7c1de2eca063af1f42c8b28ec46eba95e57f33ef342028b1c6acfd",
    "simhash": "1:a6b5ab61711711e3",
    "word_count": 1038
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:25:26.076800+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Andrew Rogers v. The People of the State of Illinois."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Sheldon\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThe plaintiff in error, Andrew Rogers, was convicted of burglary in the Criminal Court of Cook county, and_sentenced to three years\u2019 imprisonment in the penitentiary.\nTwo alleged errors are complained of:\nFirst\u2014That the verdict, of the jury was against the evidence.\nSecond\u2014That plaintiff in error was prejudiced by a certain question put to him, while testifying as a witness in his own behalf, by the presiding judge.\nThe crime was committed on Saturday, March 6, 1879, in the dwelling house of Edward C. Young, situate in the city of Chicago, on the corner of Dearborn and Thirty-second streets, in the absence of the occupants.\nThe only testimony in the case tending to connect Rogers with the burglary, was that of Richard Lydston, a boy only ten years old. He testified to seeing two men lurking about the house on that day, and coming from the back part of it, which had been broken into, under such circumstances as to leave no reasonable doubt that they were the persons who committed the crime; and he positively identified the defendant as being one of these two men.\nAgainst this was the testimony of the defendant, sustained and corroborated by that of Mary Kane and Kitty White, that all the while from ten o\u2019clock in the evening of Friday, March 5, 1879, till ten o\u2019clock on Saturday evening, March 6, 1879, the defendant was in the room of Mary Kane, on State street, three miles distant from the house of Young; that these three, with aman of the name of Wilder, were there together that evening of March 5; that defendant and Wilder slept in the room that night, and the two women went to Kitty White\u2019s room to sleep.\nAbout 12 o\u2019clock M., the next day, the two women returned to this room, and found defendant and Wilder abed; that soon after, they arose and dressed, and the four stayed there and played cards till four o\u2019clock in the afternoon, when Wilder left, but defendant stayed, till about ten o\u2019clock at night, and then went home. This room was in the middle of the house, with a door opening into a hall, and no window in the room.\nThis period testified to embraced the time when the burglary was committed. It was, then, a question of credibility between the witnesses on the respective sides,\u2014a question peculiarly within the province of a jury to decide.\nThe tender years of the boy are urged as against the reliability of his testimony in the identification of the prisoner. But this was a circumstance for the jury to weigh. The witness was before them, and they could judge of his intelligence and manner of testifying, and how far his testimony should be depended upon. The boy was a competent witness, although so young in years, and if believed, the jury were justified in finding the verdict they did. They did believe the boy, and disbelieved the story of the other witnesses. We can not say they erred in this, and found a verdict which was against the evidence.\nAs to the question put by the presiding judge, which is complained of, the record shows it in this wise:\nQuestion\u2014Was you on that day at or near Dearborn and Thirty-second streets?\nAnswer\u2014\u00a1No, sir; I don\u2019t know where the street is.\nQuestion by the court\u2014You say you were born in Chicago ?\nAnswer\u2014Yes, sir.\nQuestion by the court\u2014And you mean to tell this jury you don\u2019t know where Dearborn street is?\nObjection to question being put by court in that form. Overruled. Exception.\nAnswer\u2014I don\u2019t know where the place is.\nIn answering a further question put by defendant\u2019s attorney, defendant said he meant he didn\u2019t know where Young\u2019s place is, on Dearborn street, near Thirty-second street.\nThere does not appear to be anything really objectionable in this question. It would seem rather to have been one favorable to the prisoner, as giving the witness an opportunity to explain his former statement and prevent his being misunderstood, and such appears to have been the favorable result.\nWe find nothing in this record which should cause a reversal of the judgment, and it is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Sheldon"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. E. B. McClan\u00e1han, and Mr. W. S. Forrest, forth e plaintiff in error.",
      "Mr. James McCartney, Attorney General, Mr. Luther Laflin Mills, State\u2019s Attorney, and Mr. George C. Ingham, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Andrew Rogers v. The People of the State of Illinois.\nFiled at Ottawa May 14, 1881.\n1. New trial\u2014on evidence in criminal caees. Where there is a conflict in the evidence, it is the peculiar province of the jury to pass upon the credibility of the several witnesses. And where a boy only ten years old testified to seeing the defendant coming from a house, at the time of the commission of a burglary therein, and the defendant and another testified to an alibi, a new trial was refused on the evidence.\n2. Witness\u2014mode of examining. On the trial of one for burglary of a house on Dearborn and Thirty-second streets, in Chicago, the defendant, as a witness in his own behalf, testified that at the time of the burglary he was at *a place about three miles distant, from such house. In answer to the court, whether he was on the day of the crime at or near those streets, he said he did not know where the street was. The court then asked him if he was born in Chicago, to which he replied yes, and thereupon the court- asked this question: \u201cAnd you mean t.o tell this jury you don\u2019t know where Dearborn street is?\u201d The court overruled an objection to the question, and the witness answered that he did not know where the place was, and in answer to his counsel said he meant he didn\u2019t know where Young\u2019s place was, on Dearborn street, that being the place where the burglary was committed: Held, that there was no objection to the question propounded by the court.\nWrit op Error to the Criminal Court of Cook county; the Hon. Sidney Smith, Judge, presiding.\nMr. E. B. McClan\u00e1han, and Mr. W. S. Forrest, forth e plaintiff in error.\nMr. James McCartney, Attorney General, Mr. Luther Laflin Mills, State\u2019s Attorney, and Mr. George C. Ingham, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0581-01",
  "first_page_order": 585,
  "last_page_order": 588
}