Thomas v. People
Citations
- 113 Ill. 531
- 1885 Ill. LEXIS 725
Syllabus
<p>1. Criminal law—of the indictment—for conspiracy to obtain goods by false pretences. Where the act to be accomplished by a conspiracy is illegal, as, to obtain the goods of another by false pretences, it is not necessary to specify in the indictment the means by which it was intended to be accomplished.</p> <p>2. So a count in an indictment that the defendants, on, etc., at, etc., feloniously, fraudulently and deceitfully did conspire and agree together, with the fraudulent and malicious intent then and there, feloniously, wrongfully and wickedly, to obtain one horse, of the value of $75, and describing other property in like manner sought to be obtained, and giving its value, the personal goods and property of K. C., from the said K. C., by false pretences, and to cheat and defraud her, the said K. C., of the same, contrary, etc., is substantially good.</p> <p>3. Same—misjoinder of counts. A conspiracy to obtain the goods of another by false pretences being only a misdemeanor, both at common law and by our statute, though punishable by confinement in the penitentiary, an indictment charging such offence in two counts, with a third charging the obtaining of the same goods by false pretences, will not be obnoxious to the objection of a misjoinder of counts.</p> <p>4. Same—conspiracy to defraud—negligence of the party conspired against. Where several persons conspire together to obtain the goods of another by false pretences, and obtain such goods upon the false assurance that one of them has a clear title to certain lots which are given in exchange, the fact that the owner of the goods was induced, by his confidence in the false assurances, to forego an examination of the records, which would have shown the defendants had no good title to convey, and was negligent in relying upon the representations made, will not prevent a conviction of the defendants so-conspiring together.</p> <p>5. Same—one good count—general motion to quash. A general motion to quash an indic
Judges: Scholfield
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
21 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- United States v. SveteEleventh Circuit· 2009-02-02· cited 82×
- People v. CurranIllinois Supreme Court· 1918-12-18· cited 33×
- The People v. PottsIllinois Supreme Court· 1949-05-19· cited 29×
- People v. SmithIllinois Supreme Court· 1909-02-19· cited 29×
- Herman v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court· 1889-10-31· cited 23×
- People v. StowersIllinois Supreme Court· 1912-06-21· cited 15×
- State v. SoperSupreme Court of Iowa· 1902-10-07· cited 15×
- People Ex Rel. Latimer v. RandolphIllinois Supreme Court· 1958-05-21· cited 13×
- State v. StewartNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1900-10-17· cited 13×
- State v. KeyesSupreme Court of Missouri· 1906-05-22· cited 12×
- Keyes v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court· 1902-06-19· cited 9×
- People v. KingcannonIllinois Supreme Court· 1916-12-21· cited 9×
- Gilmore v. PeopleAppellate Court of Illinois· 1900-02-01· cited 8×
- The PEOPLE v. HiseAppellate Court of Illinois· 1971-08-03· cited 4×
- State v. EricksonWashington Supreme Court· 1909-08-25· cited 4×
- People v. SmithAppellate Court of Illinois· 1908-07-06· cited 4×
- People v. DarrAppellate Court of Illinois· 1912-10-15· cited 4×
- Smith v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1923-12-17· cited 3×
- People v. JonesIllinois Supreme Court· 1909-10-26· cited 2×
- Keyes v. PeopleAppellate Court of Illinois· 1902-02-13
Cites
4 cases in this archive are 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.