Skip to main content
· 1/20/1888

Quinn v. People

Citations

  • 123 Ill. 333
  • 15 N.E. 46
  • 1888 Ill. LEXIS 1019

Syllabus

<p>1. Criminal law—larceny of a horse—under what section of the Criminal Code the indictment properly framed. An indictment for the larceny of a horse is properly framed under section 215 of the Criminal Code, which defines the offence substantially as at common law, and not under section 224. The latter section does not define or create the offence, but simply fixes the punishment for horse stealing, and therefore operates as a limitation on section 216, which defines the punishment for larceny generally.</p> <p>2. Same—larceny of an estray—in whom to lay the ownership. In the case of the larceny of a horse while in the hands of one who had taken the horse up as an estray, the indictment may properly lay the ownership of the horse in the true owner, or in the person who held the animal as an estray. The interest of the taker of an estray animal, as against the true owner, is the posting fees and other lawful charges in his favor, but as against a wrongful taker it is the full value of the estray.</p> <p>3. Same—facts of case showing larceny. Two persons acting in concert, went to the house of the holder of an estray horse, one of them claiming to be the owner, and asked for it. The holder refused to give up the animal, and by agreement brought it the next day to town and saw such parties, who paid him his charges, and by his leave they were allowed to take the horse to the livery stable, to be fed. The party holding the horse did not intend to give it up until proof of ownership was made, and waited for the other two to come and furnish such proof. Instead of taking the animal to be fed and of returning to make the proof, they took it to an adjoining county, where they traded it for another horse. The claim of ownership was a mere pretense to get possession, and a fraud, and the facts showed that the holder of the estray never intended to surrender full-, possession and all claim to the animal until proof of ownership was made: Held, that the facts showed a larceny

Judges: Magruder, Mulkey

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.