Langdon v. People

• Decision Date: 12 June 1890
• Citation: 24 N.E. 874,133 Ill. 382
• Parties: LANGDON v. PEOPLE.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

133 Ill. 382

24 N.E. 874

LANGDON

v.PEOPLE.¹

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 12, 1890.

Error to circuit court, Kankakee county.

Haley & O'Donnell and Stephen R. Moore, for plaintiff in error.

William R. Hunter, for defendant in error.

MAGRUDER, J.

This is an indictment returned against the plaintiff in error by the grand jury of Kankakee county, at the September term of the circuit court of that county, for the forgery of the signature of a public officer. Upon the trial in the court below, the prisoner was found guilty, and sentenced to the penitentiary.

Section 114 of division 1 of the Criminal Code of this state (Starr & C. Ann. St. 786) provides that ‘every person who shall * * * forge or counterfeit the signature of any public officer * * * shall be imprisoned in the penitentiary not less than one nor more than twenty years.’ Section 5278 of the United States Revised Statutes (title 66, ‘Extradition,’ p. 1021) requires that, whenever the executive of one state demands of the executive of another state the return of a fugitive from justice, there shall be produced ‘a copy of an indictment found, or an affidavit made before a magistrate of any state or territory, charging the person demanded with having committed treason, felony, or other crime,’ etc. Section 9 of the act of this state in regard to fugitives from justice (chapter 60, Rev. St.; Starr & C. 1209) provides that ‘the manner of making application to the governor of this state for a requisition for the return of a fugitive from justice shall be by petition,’ etc. After stating what shall be the contents of the petition, said section 9 closes as follows: ‘Such petition shall be verified by affidavit, and have indorsed thereon the certificate of the judge of the county court of the county in which the crime is alleged to have been committed that the ends of justice require the return of such fugitive. Such petition shall be filed by the governor in the office of the secretary of state, to remain of record in that office.’

Plaintiff in error was a physician residing in Kankakee, Kankakee county. On April 2, 1889, he made an affidavit or complaint before one Ripley, a justice of the peace in said county, charging that on March 20, 1889, one Lou M. Hayward,being then a resident of said county, was intrusted as bailee with $200 in money, and jewelry worth $80, belonging to him; that on March 21, 1889, in said county, she embezzled said money and jewelry, and converted the same to her own use, and left the state of Illinois; and that he believes she obtained the said money and goods with the intent at the time of converting the same to her own use. On the same day, with this complaint, or a copy thereof, in his possession, plaintiff in error went to Springfield, with a view of obtaining a requisition upon the governor of Arkansas for the return of said Hayward; it being supposed that she had fled to Arkansas. He obtained from an employe in the office of the secretary of state at Springfield blank forms of the petition required by said section 9, with blank certificates thereon indorsed to be signed by the county judge and the state's attorney. Though the certificate of the state's attorney is not required by the statute, it seems to be the custom to secure the same in certain cases, where the facts warrant it. On the morning of Wednesday, April 3, 1889, plaintiff in error had returned from Springfield to Kankakee, and appeared before the grand jury, which was then in session, for the purpose of having Lou M. Hayward indicted. The grand jury, however, refused to find an indictment. Plaintiff in error procured an attorney and notary by the name of Day to fill up the blank form of the petition, and he signed and swore to said petition before Day on April 3, 1889. With the petition and a certified copy of the complaint, he applied to the state's attorney to sign a certificate stating that, as state's attorney, he had examined the case; that the said Hayward was a fugitive from justice, and had, as he believed, taken refuge in Arkansas; that she fled from Illinois before an arrest could be made; and that he believed he had within his reach, and could produce on the trial, evidence necessary to secure her conviction. This certificate the state's attorney declined to sign, and at the same time said to plaintiff in error: ‘I don't believe it would do you any good to see the county judge, because, if I don't sign it, he will not.’ The plaintiff in error then took the papers, and left the office of the state's attorney. The county judge of Kankakee county at this time was Thomas S. Sawyer. It is not altogether clear from the evidence whether he was applied to do sign the certificate indorsed on the petition or not. But the proof is clear, and uncontradicted by either side, that he never did sign such certificate.

It seems to be the custom in the office of the secretary of state to require duplicates of the papers necessary to secure the requisition of a fugitive. One draft of the petition, with its indorsed certificates, and one copy of the complaint aforesaid, are kept one file in the secretary's office; and the other draft and copy accompany the warrant which is delivered to the meassenger. Either on April 3, 1889, or at some time between that date and April 8, 1889, the plaintiff in error sent by mail to the secretary of state at Springfield two drafts of the petition aforesaid, with certificates indorsed thereon purporting to be signed by the county judge of Kankakee county, and two copies of the complaint before the justice. The papers were submitted to the governor of Illinois, and, by indorsement upon the draft of the petition filed in the office of the secretary of state on April 8, 1889, the governor directed the secretary to issue the requisition in accordance with the prayer of the petition. Accordingly the secretary prepared the usual certificate of appointment of a messenger, and the warrant addresed to the governor of Arkansas. The said certificate of appointment authorizes and empowers the plaintiff in error, P. R. Langdon, ‘as messenger and agent on the part of the state, to receive from the proper authorities of the state of Arkansas Lou M. Hayward, who stands charged by complaint with the crime of grand larceny, as bailee, committed in the county of Kankakee, in this state, and is now a fugitive from justice, and convey her to this state, to the sheriff of said county, where the offense was committed,’ etc. The warrant refers in express terms to ‘the annexed papers,’ being the complaint and petition, with the indorsements thereon, and requires ‘that said Lou M. Hayward be arrested and delivered to P. R. Langdon, who is hereby authorized and commissioned, as the agent of this state, to receive the said fugitive, and convey her to the state of Illinois, there to be dealt with in accordance with the laws.’ The certificate of the messenger's appointment and the warrant, which both bear date April 8, 1889, were signed by the governor. The great seal of the state was affixed thereto; and such certificate and warrant, with ‘the annexed papers,’ were sent by mail by the secretary of state to the plaintiff in error at Pine Bluff, Ark., and, being received there in his absence, were remailed to him at Kankakee, Ill., and received by him at the latter place. It appears from his own evidence that plaintiff in error was in Arkansas on the 4th and 5th days of April, 1889, but, failing to find said Hayward, returned to Illinois before the arrival of the documents from Springfield. No use seems to have been made of the requisition papers in Arkansas, nor is it shown that they were presented to the governor of that state. Upon the petition presented to the governor of Illinois for a requisition was indorsed the following certificate: ‘I THOMAS W. SAWYER, county judge of Kankakee county, state of Illinois, do hereby certify that the ends of justice require the return of Lou M. Hayord. [Signed] THOMAS W. SAWYER, county Judge.’ The plaintiff in error is charged with having forged the signature of Judge SAWYER to this certificate. The county judge swears that it is not his signature, and that the never signed his name to the document in question. The defense do not deny that the signature is a forgery.

Who committed the forgery? The defendant, Langdon, was arrested at Kankakee by the sheriff of the county, O'Brien, on the evening of August 31, 1889, upon a warrant, issued by a justice of the peace on the complaint of the state's attorney and the county judge, charging him with the crime of forgery and counterfeiting. O'Brien swears that he read the warrant to the defendant; that the defendant ‘asked him what it was for,’ and, upon being told ‘it was on that requisition business,’ replied, ‘I have done the whole thing, and am willing to suffer the consequences.’ Durfee, a deputy-clerk of the circuit court, swears that he was present when the arrest was made, and heard defendant say, ‘Gentlemen, I did it, and I will have to take the consequences,’ or ‘words similar to that.’ Vaughn, a deputy-sheriff, was also present at the time of the arrest, and swears that he heard defendant say: ‘I did it, and am willing to suffer the consequences.’ Durfee also swears that, on the evening of the arrest, he was requested by the defendant to call at the jail the next morning, which he did, and that, at a conversation then had, defendant made the same admission again, and said that it was done at Mr. Ripley's office, and that the papers were mailed from Kankakee to Springfield, and were to be mailed from there to Arkansas. In Miller v. People, 39 Ill. 457, we said: ‘The rule has been long settled in our law that, while a free and voluntary confession of guilt is of the highest order of evidence, one extorted is never received.’ We see nothing in the testimony to show that the confession made to that three witnesses above named was not entirely free and...