Van Meter v. People

Citations

• 60 Ill. 168

Syllabus

<p>1. Riot — persons of the same name — judgment uncertain. Where two persons of the same Christian and sir names are indicted, and they are not distinguished the one from the other, and one is found guilty, without designating which, and a new trial was granted as to one of them and overruled as to the other: Hdd, that the record of the conviction is so confused as to be incomprehensible.</p> <p>2. Continuance — affidavit—admitting its truth. On a trial for a riot, the defendant filed an affidavit for a continuance, which contained sufficient grounds for allowing the motion, but the State’s attorney offered to admit that the witnesses, if present, would swear to the facts contained in the affidavit, whereupon the court overruled the motion and required the parties to proceed to trial on such admission:' Meld, the court erred, as the act of 1869 is but an amendment of the practice act, and does not apply to criminal trials; but that the court might properly, in such a case, permit the prosecuting attorney to admit the absolute truth of the affidavit, without the right to contradict its truth, and require the defendant to go to trial, but in doing so it would not be under the practice act, but because the court could see that the defendant would not be prejudiced.</p> <p>3. Accessories — in misdemeanors. Our statute, in reference to accessories before the fact, applies to misdemeanors, although it uses the word “ crimes.” A misdemeanor is a crime, although not of the grayest character. In misdemeanors, all accessories before the fact are principals at common law as well as under our statute, and as such are punishable.</p>