Michaels v. People

Decision Date20 April 1904
Citation208 Ill. 603,70 N.E. 747
PartiesMICHAELS v. PEOPLE.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Error to Circuit Court, Peoria County; T. N. Green, Judge.

Samuel B. Michaels was convicted of forgery, and brings error. Reversed.

Joseph A. Weil, for plaintiff in error.

H. J. Hamlin, Atty. Gen., William V. Tefft, State's Atty., and Geo. B. Gillespie, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the People.

CARTWRIGHT, J.

Plaintiff in error was convicted in the circuit court of Peoria county upon an indictment charging him with forging a check in the name of C. Schilling & Co., of San Francisco, Cal., on the Third National Bank of San Francisco, dated October 10, 1901, for $75, payable to the order of W. E. Hull. The evidence tended to prove that on the date of the check a person representing himself to be Mr. Schilling, of Schilling & Co., of San Francisco, Cal., gave to William E. Hull, manager of Clarke's Distillery, at Peoria, an order for 100 barrels of Clarke's rye whisky, to be shipped to San Francisco; that this person bought in Peoria three or four diamonds, amounting to $150, and afterward stated that the purchase made him short of money, and he must wire for funds to get to Denver; that Hull offered to let him have money, and he drew the check in question, for which Hull gave him $75. The defendant was arrested in Memphis, Tenn., on January 24, 1903, and was brought to Peoria, where the trial took place in November, 1903. The principal question of fact was the identity of the defendant with the person who drew the check, and upon that subject the evidence was contradictory. He was identified with more or less certainty by several persons who saw the man who drew the check in Peoria, while some others failed to identify him as such person. There was evidence, consisting of the book of the hotel where he boarded and the testimony of witnesses, that on the date of the check he was staying at said hotel in Chicago with his wife.

We are of the opinion that the defendant did not have a fair trial, and that the judgment must be reversed on account of prejudicial error in the admission of evidence and in giving an instruction at the request of the people. Joseph Farnbacher, of Memphis, Tenn., was called as a witness for the people, and testified that he was a clerk and deputy sheriff in the office of F. W. Davis, a justice of the peace in that city. He produced several papers purporting to be the files of an attachment suit for $75 brought by said W. E. Hull against the defendant before said F. W. Davis, as a justice of the peace, and testified to the signatures of the justice subscribed to the same. The papers consisted of an affidavit for a writ of attachment signed by W. E. Hull, and sworn to before the said F. W. Davis, a bond, a writ of attachment issued by Davis, a return by the sheriff showing service, and that he garnished the State National Bank, and a statement signed by the bank that there was $1,000 to the credit of the defendant in the bank. There was a memorandum on the process which the witness testified that he had written: ‘Settled by the defendant paying into court the amount of debt and costs this 26th day of January, 1903.’ He testified that he went over to the city prison, where the defendant was confined, and brought him into the justice court to his attorney, and after a consultation the attorney paid into court the amount for which the suit was begun, and costs. These papers were then offered in evidence, and were admitted over the objection of the defendant. The papers were not authenticated in any manner, and there was no attempt to authenticate them, under the act of Congress or otherwise. There was no evidence that F. W. Davis was a justice of the peace in Tennessee, and our courts do not even take judicial notice who are justices of the peace within this state, beyond the county where the court is held. There was no evidence as to the jurisdiction of justices of the peace in that state, and the alleged files of the suit were not admissible in evidence. Brackett v. People, 64 Ill. 170. The defendant testified that he was not out of the jail on that day; that he was never in the office of the justice of the peace; that, if the money was paid, it was by his intended bondsman as a deposit and security for the claim. The reply made on behalf of the people is that the papers were admissible because they were not intended to prove a judgment against the defendant, but merely to prove the settlement of the suit by payment of the amount for which the writ was issued and costs. We do not understand...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • State v. Andrus
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • June 5, 1967
    ...of guilt. Lee v. State, 102 Ga. 221, 29 S.E. 264; Goodwin v. State, 114 Wis. 318, 90 N.W. 170; Collins v. State, supra; Michaels v. People, 208 Ill. 603, 70 N.E. 747; Willard v. State, 26 Tex.App. 126, 9 S.W. Counsel for defendants, as already stated, treats the remark as an incriminatory a......
  • Dover v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • June 27, 1917
    ...129 N. C. 523, 39 S. E. 840; State v. Vaigneur, 5 Rich. (S. C.) 400; Goodwin v. State, 114 Wis. 318, 90 N. W. 170; Michaels v. People, 208 Ill. 603, 70 N. E. 747; State v. Campbell, 73 Kan. 688, 85 Pac. 784, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 533, 9 Ann. Cas. 1203; State v. Thomas, 135 Iowa, 717, 109 N. W.......
  • Mason v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • June 3, 1914
    ...129 N. C. 523, 39 S. E. 840; State v. Vaigneur, 5 Rich. (S. C.) 400; Goodwin v. State, 114 Wis. 318, 90 N. W. 170; Michaels v. People, 208 Ill. 603, 70 N. E. 747; State v. Campbell, 73 Kan. 688, 85 Pac. 784, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 533, 9 Ann. Cas. 1203; State v. Thomas, 135 Iowa, 717, 109 N. W.......
  • People v. Wynekoop
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • February 12, 1935
    ...of facts criminating in their nature or tending to prove guilt. It is limited in its meaning to the criminal act.’ Michaels v. People, 208 Ill. 603, 70 N. E. 747, 748;People v. Stapleton, 300 Ill. 471, 133 N. E. 224;People v. Kircher, 309 Ill. 500, 141 N. E. 151;People v. Arthur, 314 Ill. 2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT