Mayes v. People
Citations
- 106 Ill. 306
- 1883 Ill. LEXIS 170
Syllabus
<p>1. Indictment fob mubdee—whether sufficient. A count in an indictment for murder alleged that the defendant, with a glass which he in his right hand held, in and upon M. feloniously did make an assault, and with such glass to and against M. did cast and throw and strike, and with such glass defendant a certain lamp, with oil and wick therein, which M. held in her hand, then and there lighted and burning, did break and destroy, and by means of such breaking of the lamp so held by M., and being so lighted and burning, the oil of said lamp was spread and poured upon the said M., and by reason thereof the clothing and garments of the said M. were fired and burned on her person, and by reason of such burning the body, face, neck, head and limbs of said M. were greatly burned, and thereby she received five mortal burns upon the neck, face, body, head and limbs, by reason of the said casting, throwing and striking with the said glass by the defendant, and the breaking of said lamp so containing oil, and being lighted, as aforesaid, from which mortal burns said M. did die: Held, that the count was substantially good, and there was no error in refusing to quash the same. It was not essential to aver specifically “that the oil was fired by the flame of the wick of the lamp, then filled with oil and burning, and held by the deceased in her hand,” in order to show the cause of death. The words “by reason thereof, ” as used by the pleader, refer as well to the preceding words “lighted and burning,” as to the words “spread and poured upon the said Kate Mayes. ”</p> <p>2. Mubdeb—of the intent—what necessary to constitute the crime. Where an act, unlawful in itself, is done with deliberation, and with intention of mischief or great bodily harm to some particular person, or of mischief indiscriminately, fall where it may, and death ensues from such act, against or beside the original intention of the party, it will be murder.</p> <p>3. So in this case, where the defendant, in an
Judges: Scholfield
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
32 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- People v. BartallIllinois Supreme Court· 1983-10-21· cited 298×
- People v. JeffersonSupreme Court of Colorado· 1988-01-11· cited 70×
- Letner v. StateTennessee Supreme Court· 1927-11-21· cited 48×
- People Ex Rel. Daley v. StrayhornIllinois Supreme Court· 1988-03-23· cited 46×
- Dreyer v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court· 1900-10-19· cited 40×
- People v. FalkovitchIllinois Supreme Court· 1917-10-23· cited 33×
- Peyton v. Village of Morgan ParkIllinois Supreme Court· 1898-02-14· cited 27×
- State v. DravesCourt of Appeals of Oregon· 1974-07-29· cited 22×
- People v. NallIllinois Supreme Court· 1909-10-26· cited 19×
- The People v. GoldvargIllinois Supreme Court· 1931-12-17· cited 14×
- Pinkstaff v. the Pennsylvania R. Co.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1960-01-29· cited 11×
- Daxanbeklar v. PeopleAppellate Court of Illinois· 1901-02-13· cited 11×
- The People v. CarusoIllinois Supreme Court· 1930-04-17· cited 10×
- Tindall v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1916-08-10· cited 9×
- People v. CapelloIllinois Supreme Court· 1918-02-20· cited 8×
- People v. ParkerIllinois Supreme Court· 1918-06-20· cited 7×
- Ringering v. Wood River Drainage & Levee DistrictAppellate Court of Illinois· 1918-11-01· cited 5×
- The People v. BurecaIllinois Supreme Court· 1933-12-22· cited 4×
- Holland v. PeopleAppellate Court of Illinois· 1907-03-13· cited 4×
- City of Rock Island v. LarkinAppellate Court of Illinois· 1907-10-18· cited 4×
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.