Beedle v. People

• Decision Date: 26 October 1903
• Citation: 68 N.E. 434,204 Ill. 197
• Parties: BEEDLE v. PEOPLE.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

204 Ill. 197

68 N.E. 434

BEEDLE

v.PEOPLE.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 26, 1903.

Error to Circuit Court, Douglas County; W. G. Cochrane, Judge.

William A. Beedle was convicted of crime, and appeals. Reversed.

J. M. Newman and W. C. Johns, for plaintiff in error.

H. J. Hamlin, Atty. Gen., Geo. B. Gillespie, Asst. Atty. Gen., and John H. Chadwick, State's Atty., for the People.

RICKS, J.

At the October term, 1902, of the Douglas circuit court, plaintiff in error was indicted for the crime of forgery. Upon trial he was found guilty, and sentenced to the penitentiary for an indeterminate term.

Upon the trial it appeared that on April 16, 1902, defendant applied to the cashier of the Citizens' Bank of Garrett for a loan of $15, offering to give a note for such amount, with his mother, M. J. Beedle, as security. The cashier informed him that such note would be accepted, and wrote out a note for Beedle to take to his mother to sign. Beedle took it and went out of the bank, stating he would have his mother sign it, and in 15 or 20 minutes brought it back with his name and that of his mother signed to the note, whereupon the cashier discounted it and gave him the proceeds of the note. The same evening, after the discounting of the note, the cashier of the bank met Mrs. Beedle, and asked her if she had signed a note for Bert (plaintiff in error) that afternoon, and she replied, ‘No, sir; I did not.’ He then said to her, ‘Didn't you sign a note for Bert for $15 this afternoon?’ And she replied, ‘No, sir; I did not.’ He then said to her, ‘Did you give him any authority to sign your name to any note today?’ And she answered, ‘No, sir; I did not.’ Several persons were present at this conversation, and their evidence is substantially alike. Two days after this conversation the defendant was arrested at his mother's house. There is some dispute as to whether or not the warrant was read to him at that time. However, when he was arrested he asked if the matter could not be fixed up, and the cashier, who was there with the sheriff, replied that he (the cashier) was without power to arrange any settlement of the matter. The defendant then said his mother gave him permission to sign that note, and she said, ‘Bert, I never. I am not going to lie for you any more;’ and he said, ‘Yes, you did. You said I could have the $15. Ma, you know you gave me permission to sign that note;’ and she said, ‘No, Bert, I didn't;’ and he said, ‘You told me I might have $15.’ It is conceded that M. J. Beedle's name was signed to the note by plaintiff in error. The foregoing constitutes practically all the evidence in behalf of the state tending to prove the want of authority to sign the name of Mrs. Beedle.

From the evidence offered on behalf of the defendant it appears that shortly prior to the foregoing transaction the plaintiff in error desired to purchase a butcher shop for $50, and had requested his mother to sign a note for that amount, which his mother refused to do. Mrs. Beedle testified that when talking to the cashier she understood he was speaking of the $50 note, and that in the conversation had with him she had in mind a $50 note, and that when the sheriff came to her house to arrest the defendant she ‘had in mind a $50 note. I understood they were arresting him for the forgery of a $50 note.’ She further testified that the defendant came to her house with the $15 note for her to sign, and as she was very busy she told him to sign her name for her, and, upon her giving him authority so to do, he signed her name to the note in her presence. Julia Ritz, a sister to the plaintiff in error, testified, in substance: ‘I was present on the 16th day of April, when my brother came in with this note. It was in the afternoon. Mother was in the kitchen, cooking something. He asked ma that he would like to have $15-if she would sign his note. He asked ma if she would sign a note for $15 for him, and she told him she was busy, and he could sign her name to it, and he did, and went to the writing desk and signed her name and his own. He showed the note to mother and went back uptown in just a few minutes.’ This, with the note, was substantially all the evidence offered.

Upon motion for new trial the defendant filed an affidavit of Wesley Darling, a newly discovered witness, in which affidavit Darling states that he is engaged in the butcher business; that on April 16th the mother of the defendant came to the shop and asked if Bert had bought the butcher shop; that affiant said that there was a note to that effect already made out, but not signed, and Mrs. Beedle said: ‘I do not want him to buy the shop. I have already helped him to borrow $15 this afternoon.’

The court gave the following instructions on behalf of the people: ‘(5) The jury are instructed that, in determining the questions of fact in this case, they shall consider the entire evidence introduced by the parties thereto; but the jury are at liberty to disregard the statements of all such witnesses, if any there be, as have been successfully impeached, either by direct contradiction, or by proof of such witnesses having made different or contradictory statements at other times as to any material matter in the case, except in so far as such witnesses have been corroborated by other credible evidence or by facts or circumstances proved on the trial. (6) The credit of a witness may be impeached by proof that such witness has made statements out of court contrary to what said witness has testified on the trial, and in this case, if you believe from the evidence that any witness has...