delivered the opinion of the Court:
Thе defendant and others were indicted by the grand jury of Cook county for the crime of murder, committed in that county, and on trial in the Criminal Court of Cook county, at its March term, A. D. 1883, the defendant was conviсted of the crime, and sentenced to the penitentiary for the term of his natural life. The court, at the same time, made an order that the defendant have sixty days within which to file a bill of exceptions, and accordingly a bill of exceptions was signed by the judge before whom the trial was had, and filed in the office of the clerk of the Cook circuit court, on the 22d of May, A. D. 1883. The evidence preserved in that bill of exceptions fails to show where the crime was committed. The witnesses, as their evidence is therein recited, refer to streets and localities by name, without indicating further, however, in what county, or even in what city, they are; nor do the witnesses mention any faсt or circumstance showing, by necessary inference, that such streets or localities must be in the city of Chicago, or elsewhere in Cook county. True, there may be streets and localities of the same names in the city of Chicago, but so there also may be in other cities, and no rulе of law requires us to judicially know that those referred to by the witnesses are in the city of Chicago, or elsewhere in Cook county. The same names will often be found to be applied to strеets and public localities in different cities. The principle is as well settled as is any other applicable to criminal trials, that where the record brought to this court on writ of error, in a criminal case, purports to contain all the evidence given on the trial below, it must apрear affirmatively, from the evidence, that the offence charged was committed in the сounty alleged in the indictment, otherwise a judgment of conviction will be reversed. Rice v. The Peоple,
The People, however, claim to have obviated this objection by an amended record, filed in this court on the 6th day of January, A. D. 1886. In this record, an order of court is made at the December term, A. D. 1885, of the Cook Criminal Court, (whiсh, it will be observed, is some two years and three-fourths after the expiration of the term at which the defendant was convicted, and more than two years and a half after the expiration of the time from which the defendant was allowed to and did file his bill of exceptions,) in which order it is recited that “the said bill of exceptions be and hereby is amended, by adding thereto the fact that the crime for which the said defendants in the said above entitled cause were tried, was perpetrated and committed in the city of Chicago, county of Cook, and State of Illinois.” The genеral rule, as recognized by this court, is, the bill of exceptions must be taken and signed during the term at which thе cause was tried, except in cases where counsel consent, or the judge, by an entry оn the record, directs, that it may be prepared in vacation, and signed nunc pro tunc. (Evans v. Fisher,
It clearly appears from this аmended record, that there was nothing here, in the record, to amend by. There was no memoriаl paper or minute in the case from which what was actually proven on the trial can be clearly ascertained and known, which is indispensable in such cases, (Albers v. Whitney et al.
The motion to strike j¿he amended record from the files is sustained, and for the error in the record in failing to show in what county the offence was committed, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.
Judgment reversed.