Kotter v. People

Citations

• 150 Ill. 441
• 37 N.E. 932
• 1894 Ill. LEXIS 1625

Syllabus

<p>1. Indictment — charging distinct offenses in one indictment. In cases-of felony, where two or more distinct offenses are charged in the same indictment, it may be quashed, or the prosecutor compelled to elect on which charge he will proceed. But such, election will not be required where several counts are introduced solely for the purpose of meeting the evidence as it may transpire, the charges being substantially for the same offense.</p> <p>2. There can be only one transaction embraced in a single indictment for felony, and the only mode of objecting to a joinder of offenses, in case of felony, is by an application to the court to quash the indictment before plea, or to compel the prosecutor to elect which charge he will try.</p> <p>3. The defendant moved to quash an indictment charging him with the forgery of three receipts of three different persons, but did not make any formal motion to compel the prosecutor to elect for which forgery he would prosecute, which the court overruled: Held, that the court erred in overruling the motion to quash.</p> <p>4. Criminal law — forgery—intent to damage and defraud. On the trial of one for the forgery of receipts, the court, on behalf of the People, instructed the jury, that while it was necessary that the defendant should have forged the receipts with the intent to damage and defraud the persons whose names were signed thereto, yet if they found that the defendant forged the receipts, or either of them, then the law would presume that defendant intended to damage and defraud such persons: Held, that it was error to give the instruction.</p> <p>5. On the trial of one for the forgery of three receipts for fees due-from him to his witnesses, where it was claimed that the witnesses had agreed to give him their fees, the court instructed the jury as foliows: “Even though you may believe that all three of the parties (witnesses) mentioned in the indictment did agree to give their witness fees to the defendant, still this wou