one holding a room in a hotel under lease for a definite period of time and making it his home is correctly laid as owner of the room. (State v. Johnson, 4 Wash. 593.) Subsequently the same court held in State v. Burton, 67 Pac. Rep. 1097, that an information charging burglary of certain rooms in a hotel, describing them as the dwelling house of the occupant, was sufficient without alleging the leasing of the rooms by the occupant for a definite period.

Plaintiff in error cites with some confidence Thomas v. State, 97 Ala. 4. In that case the indictment charged that the defendant broke and entered a sample room in a hotel named. The room was not alleged to be the room of any person, and the name by which it was described precludes any inference that it was the habitation or dwelling house of any one. The indictment was held defective in the statement of the crime, but in the course of the opinion the court said a hotel might or might not be a dwelling house, according to the facts as to its occupancy and habitation, and that each separate room in a hotel might be a dwelling house within the provisions of the statute. In Ullman v. State, 1 Tex. App. 220, the precise question was not before the court, but it recognized the correctness of this rule by the use of this language: "Still, in burglary, the separate room of a guest at a hotel has been deemed to be his dwelling house."

The indictment before us alleged the room in the Morrison Hotel entered by plaintiff in error was the room of Elizabeth Scharf. If she dwelt therein, as the language infers, it was her dwelling house, and entering it as charged in the indictment, and as plaintiff in error admitted he did, would constitute burglary. The possibility that she might not have occupied the room in such manner as to make it her dwelling house was a question for proof but did not. render the indictment bad on its face.

It is insisted that the plea of guilty in this case will not support the judgment entered thereon. The indictment.

charged plaintiff in error, in separate counts, with burglary and with receiving stolen property knowing it to have been so obtained. It is contended that both offenses grew out of a single transaction; that they are separate and distinct offenses and are inconsistent, and that a person could not be guilty of burglary and of receiving the property obtained in the same transaction. There is nothing in the record to show that both of the offenses here charged grew out of a single transaction, unless it be from the fact that the description of the property in the different counts is the same. Accepting it as true, however, that there was but a single transaction, and conceding that plaintiff in error could not be guilty of both crimes, it does not necessarily follow that judgment could not be entered on a plea of guilty to both.

In support of the above contention plaintiff in error cites and relies on Tobin v. People, 104 Ill. 565. In that case an indictment consisting of three counts, charging, respectively, robbery, larceny and receiving stolen property, was found against James Tobin, Allen Cummings and Frank Williams. There was a plea of not guilty and trial by jury. The jury returned the following verdict: “We, the jury, find the defendants James Tobin and Frank Williams guilty in manner and form as charged in the indictment and fix their terms of imprisonment at four years each in the penitentiary of this State." Tobin was sentenced in accordance with the verdict and he thereupon sued out a writ of error to reverse the judgment. This court held that it was inconsistent to hold that where there was a single transaction involved, as the proof there showed, the same person could have been guilty of both the offenses of robbery and of having received goods obtained. by the robbery, knowing them to have been so obtained. The court further said that the three offenses charged in the indictment are not comprised in robbery; that larceny might be embraced in it, but receiving property obtained by robbery is a separate and distinct offense; that Tobin

could not have been guilty of both of those offenses, and as the proof rendered it uncertain which of the offenses charged in the indictment the jury found him guilty of, the judgment was reversed.

Since plaintiff in error in this case could not be guilty of both offenses charged in this indictment but has pleaded guilty to both, of which offense was he guilty and for which was he sentenced? After the entry of the plea the court heard the testimony of witnesses and sentenced plaintiff in error to imprisonment in the penitentiary "for the crime of burglary, etc., whereof he stands convicted," until discharged by the State Board of Pardons, "provided such term of imprisonment in said penitentiary shall not exceed the maximum term for the crime for which said defendant was convicted and sentenced." In Lyons v. People, 68 Ill. 271, the first count of the indictment charged defendants with burglary and the second count charged petit larceny. The jury returned a verdict finding defendants "guilty in manner and form as charged in the indictment" and fixed the punishment at one year in the penitentiary. It was contended that the verdict would not support the judgment, as the punishment for the two offenses was different and it was uncertain of which offense the jury intended to find them guilty. The court said: "The logical effect of the verdict is that the defendants are guilty as charged in each count, but as the punishment imposed is only that prescribed by law for the offense charged in the first count, it is reasonably certain that the jury intended by their verdict to find the defendants guilty and punish them for the offense charged in that count, alone." In Love v. People, 160 Ill. 501, the indictment contained three counts, each count charging burglary and larceny. A verdict was returned finding the defendant guilty and fixing his punishment at one year in the penitentiary. The court held the conviction was for burglary, and not obnoxious to the error assigned that it failed to specify the

offense for which he was convicted. In those cases the different counts of the indictment did not charge offenses that were inconsistent, but they establish the rule that upon a verdict of guilty, generally, the punishment fixed by the verdict may be considered in determining the offense of which the defendants were convicted.

Upon a plea of guilty it is the duty of the court to fix the punishment. After hearing the testimony of the witnesses the court sentenced plaintiff in error to imprisonment in the penitentiary for the crime of burglary. By his plea plaintiff in error admitted his guilt of both crimes charged, but he was sentenced for only one of them. The sentence specifies the crime for which he was sentenced, and if we may look to the judgment of the court and the punishment fixed, as was done in the Lyons and Love cases, we do not find any uncertainty. If plaintiff in error had denied his guilt and upon trial had been found guilty, generally, and sentenced upon the verdict for both crimes, the Tobin case would be in point. But Tobin denied his guilt of any of the crimes charged in the indictment. He could not have been guilty of all three of them, and it was uncertain from the general verdict which of them the jury intended to find him guilty of. In the case before us plaintiff in error by his plea confessed his guilt of both offenses. The court heard evidence before pronouncing sentence and judgment. The evidence is not preserved in the record and the presumption is that it sustained the judgment. It would be strange, indeed, if the law were that where a defendant is charged with two offenses in different counts of the indictment and pleads guilty to both, the court could not hear evidence and sentence him for the crime of which the proof showed him to be guilty.

In our opinion no rule of law was violated and plaintiff in error was denied no legal right to which he was entitled by the judgment and sentence in this case. The judgment is therefore affirmed. Judgment affirmed.

HARRY M. KEMP et al. Appellees, vs. DIVISION NO. 241, AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION OF STREET AND ELECTRIC RAILWAY EMPLOYEES OF AMERICA et al. Appellants.

Opinion filed June 21, 1912-Rehearing denied October 2, 1912.

I. LABOR UNIONS-employee may quit service of employer unless bound by contract. Any employee, unless bound by contract, may quit the service of his employer for any reason or for no reason, and his right to do so cannot be abridged or taken away by any act of the legislature nor is it subject to control by the courts, as it is guaranteed by the thirteenth amendment to the Federal constitution.

2. SAME-when employee does not commit actionable wrong in procuring another's discharge. Any employee may refuse to work with another employee who is for any reason objectionable to him, provided his refusal does not violate his contract with his employer, and he does not commit an actionable wrong against the other employee by merely notifying the employer that he will not work with such employee, even though the latter is thereupon discharged by his employer.

3. SAME-officers of labor union act as agents for the members. The purpose of organizing labor unions is to enable employees who become members to negotiate matters arising between them and their employers through the intermediation of officers and committees of the union, and if duly authorized by the employees to adjust a controversy between them and their employer, the union and its officers and committees are merely acting in the matter as agents of the employees.

4. SAME members of a union may authorize officers to notify employer of their demands. No contract rights being involved, members of a labor union have the legal right to inform their employer that they will quit his employ, singly or in a body, if certain employees who are objectionable to them are not discharged, and they may authorize the officers of the union to communicate such information to the employer, and the officers in so doing, and in reporting the result of the conference, commit no actionable wrong.

5. SAME when employees cannot enjoin calling of a strike. Non-union employees cannot maintain a bill to enjoin the officers of a labor union from calling a strike in accordance with a previous vote of the members of the union, not bound by contract, who are co-employees of the complainants, even though the purpose of the strike is to compel complainants to join the union or be dis