People v. Drury

6 Citing cases

  1. State v. Fields

    85 Wn. 2d 126 (Wash. 1975)   Cited 35 times
    Upholding CrR 2.3 as within the Supreme Court's rulemaking power

    Other cases state that the right to issue search warrants clearly existed at common law. People v. Drury, 250 Ill. App. 547, 571 (1928). A lower Pennsylvania court has held that the search warrant is a creature of the common law and may be issued without statutory authority.

  2. The People v. Baker

    16 Ill. 2d 364 (Ill. 1959)   Cited 102 times
    In People v. Baker (1959), 16 Ill.2d 364, 372-73, an accomplice who fully disclosed to the jury his involvement in the crime for which the defendant was being tried was also permitted to testify that he had confessed to the crime.

    Suffice it to say that the law permits each act or declaration of conspirators to be proved against all, ( People v. Pierce, 387 Ill. 608; People v. Levy, 351 Ill. 110,) that the scope and manner of the redirect examination did not exceed cross-examination, ( People v. Allen, 368 Ill. 368,) and that the remarks of the prosecutor, being based upon competent and pertinent evidence, did not transcend legitimate argument. People v. Drury, 250 Ill. App. 547, affirmed 335 Ill. 539. Finally, defendant contends the court erred in refusing him a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence tending to establish that Taylor did in fact expect to gain some benefit in exchange for his testimony against the defendant.

  3. McGehee v. Perkins

    49 S.E.2d 304 (Va. 1948)   Cited 12 times

    8 Michie's Virginia and West Virginia Digest, section 9, p. 235, et seq. It is also true that when a litigant undertakes to explain the absence of a witness, and to show that he has been unsuccessful despite diligent efforts in procuring his presence, it is proper for the other party to show by competent evidence that his adversary had not in fact been diligent and that the witness was accessible. In People v. Drury, 250 Ill. App. 547, 573 (affirmed 335 Ill. 539, 167 N.E. 823), cited by counsel for McGehee, the State, to meet the explanation of the accused of his failure to produce a material witness, offered evidence to the effect that the witness lived within a short distance of the place of trial and was easily available. The admission of such evidence was held to be proper.

  4. Gordon v. Bauer

    177 Ill. App. 3d 1073 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988)   Cited 26 times

    The Bauers breached the contracts by not tendering performance. The Bauers cite People v. Drury (1928), 250 Ill. App. 547, aff'd (1929), 335 Ill. 539, 167 N.E. 823, for the proposition that an agreement between a borrower and a bank to loan money in excess of the legal loan limit of the bank is unlawful and constitutes conspiracy regardless of the faith of the bank in the borrower's honesty. Upon a review of Drury, however, we do not believe that is the correct holding of the case.

  5. People v. Walter

    161 N.E.2d 707 (Ill. App. Ct. 1959)   Cited 1 times

    The indictment here complies with both of those requirements. [2-4] It has been repeatedly held that the gist of the crime of conspiracy is the making of the unlawful agreement to do the unlawful act, or acting unlawfully, People v. Nathanson, 389 Ill. 311, at 316; People v. Kahn, 256 Ill. App. 415, at 418; People v. Drury, 250 Ill. App. 547, at 567; 11 I.L.P., Conspiracy, ยง 52. In People v. Buckminster, 282 Ill. 177, it was urged that the state did not have jurisdiction, because the wrongful acts to be done were to be done outside of the State of Illinois.

  6. People v. Meisenhelter

    47 N.E.2d 108 (Ill. App. Ct. 1943)   Cited 2 times

    The question of the state of mind, motive and intent of the several defendants was a fact which the jury was entitled to have as a bearing upon the ultimate fact charged, and for the purpose of assisting the jury in coming to a conclusion as to the ultimate fact. It appeared that Meisenhelter was following the Vandalia job as a pattern and the court properly admitted the evidence to enlighten the jury on the motive and intent of Meisenhelter. Evidence tending to show the relation of the parties, the purpose of the combination and the preliminary steps taken to effect that purpose is within the scope of the investigation to establish the conspiracy. People v. Drury, 250 Ill. App. 547; People v. Nall, 242 Ill. 284. Error is assigned by the defendants on the trial court's ruling in admitting the written statements of defendants Roy, Wilson, Watkins, Chvatal and Foxx. The court limited the admission to the particular defendant making the statement and deleted the names of any other defendant appearing in the statement, substituting the words "other person or persons."