People v. Ciralsky
| Decision Date | 14 June 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 22879.,22879. |
| Citation | 360 Ill. 554,196 N.E. 733 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. CIRALSKY. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Walter J. La Buy, Judge.
Annice Ciralsky was convicted of forgery, and she brings error.
Reversed and remanded.Martin O. Weisbrod, Harry J. Busch, and Samuel A. Hoffman, all of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
Otto Kerner, Atty. Gen., Thomas J. Courtney, State's Atty., of Chicago, and J. J. Neiger, of Springfield (Edward E. Wilson, Henry E. Seyfarth, and John T. Gallagher, all of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
Annice Ciralsky and Edward J. Nix were convicted of forgery in the criminal court of Cook county. Nix was granted a new trial. The defendant Ciralsky was sentenced to the Illinois State Reformatory for Women at Dwight for a term of from one to fourteen years. She prosecutes this writ of error to reverse the judgment against her.
The indictment contains six counts. A nolle prosequi was entered to the last four. The first count, in substance, charges the forgery on April 19, 1933, with intent to defraud the state of Illinois of a certain order for the delivery of groceries to Aron Williams and Anna Williams, purporting to have been issued by the Cook County Bureau of Public Welfare and to bear on its face a receipt for such groceries signed by Anna Williams; that the county of Cook, through its bureau of public welfare, was co-operating with the Illinois Emergency Relief Commission in disbursing money and funds of the state for the relief of residents of the county who were unemployed or in destitute and necessitous circumstances, and that orders issued by the bureau, when bearing the signed receipt of the person to whom issued, became obligations of the state, payable out of the funds and money of the state. The second count charges the uttering of the instrument set forth in the first count with intent to defraud the state.
The Cook County Bureau of Public Welfare, in co-operation with the Illinois Emergency Relief Commission, maintained relief stations in various parts of the county. One of them was known as the Oakwood district, and was located at 5059 Vincennes avenue, on the Soutth Side in Chicageo. A supervisor, assistant supervisor, head relief clerk, registrar, and financial clerk were the officials in charge, and the clerical staff, numbering about 80 persons, was comprised of case workers, checkers, order typists and ‘will call clerks.’ Each pending application for relief was kept in the file department. If approved, the case was sent to the relief department with a relief card. When a case record was sent in for the first order, the budget clerk filled out a budget sheet showing its amount. A disbursing order was filled out in quadruplicate from memoranda appearingon the relief cards, with the name and address of the relief client, the case number, the name of the grocer who was directed to fill the order, the amount, the number of ration orders and the amount of milk supplied. An entry on the relief card was made for each order issued, showing the date and the number of the disbursing order. The order was checked with the relief card by a checker, who placed his signature on the order. It was then mailed to the relief client or sent to the ‘will call’ department. If an order sent to that department was not called for within five days, it was canceled, and a notation to that effect marked on the relief card. A copy of the disbursing order was retained at the station. When groceries were delivered to a relief client, he signed a receipt therefor printed on the order. The merchant took up the order and presented it, with his statement, for payment. Several orders could be grouped with a statement. Each order was required to have attached to it an itemized bill on the merchant's billhead of the goods furnished. The claims were sent to the filing department, where the duplicate copy of the order was matched with the original. They were then checked in detail by the auditing department. If no errors appeared, a sheet listing the orders and their amounts was attached. The orders were stamped, passed by the accountant in charge, and by the director of the unemployment relief service. They were then forwarded to the Illinois Emergency Relief Commission, where a voucher was prepared and sent to the state auditor, by whom a check was drawn to the order of the merchant.
Edward J. Nix was head relief clerk at the Oakwood relief station from October, 1932, until about June, 1933. As such he had supervision of writing and dispensing all disbursing orders and of the employees performing those duties. He had power to make corrections in orders, such as changing the name of a grocer if a relief client moved from the district or if for another sufficient reason a change was necessary. In January and February, 1933, Aron Williams and his wife, Anna Williams, who resided in the Oakwood district, obtained relief through the Oakwood station. During those two months they obtained groceries at a store conducted by the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company. About March 1, 1933, Williams returned to work with the International Harvester Company, where he had previously been employed. The grocery store of A. Bush, at 4413 South State street, was operated by his daughter, Annice Ciralsky, the defendant. He had been in California for several years. The disbursing order on which the indictment is based was introduced in evidence. It is numbered 327802, dated March 23, 1933, and purports to be signed by R. D. Potter, authorized representative. The order is for the delivery to ‘Williams, Aron Anna,’ $5.04 in groceries. It was originally directed to ‘Nat'l Tea Co.’ That name is canceled and ‘A. Bush—4416 S. State St.’ is substituted followed by the signature, ‘Edw. J. Nix.’ In the lower left-hand corner of the order is printed, ‘I hereby certify that I have received goods in the amount listed above,’ followed by a signature, ‘Anna Williams.’ An itemized statement on a billhead of A. Bush purporting to show the groceries delivered on the order was admitted in evidence. Anna Williams testified that the signature to the receipt was not hers, and both she and her husband testified that they received no relief in March, 1933, or thereafter, and that they never received any groceries from A. Bush. A list of disbursing orders purporting to have been issued in favor of A. Bush aggregating $311.62, and a warrant issued by the state auditor to A. Bush in that amount, dated May 3, 1933, bearing the indorsement ‘A. Bush,’ were admitted in evidence, together with the Williams relief card.
The defendant's motion to quash the indictment was properly denied. It is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Brown
...the check. Proof of forgery by making “must be connected with the person charged or there is a failure of proof.” People v. Ciralsky, 360 Ill. 554, 560, 196 N.E. 733 (1935). ¶ 52 Of course, the State bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt each element of a charged offense and......
-
People v. Roberts
... ... A document apparently capable of defrauding another is one which has some legal significance, and could be falsely made or altered. (See: I.L.P. Forgeries, sec. 4, pp. 544--545; Goodman v. People, 228 Ill. 154, 81 N.E. 830; People v. Ciralsky, 360 Ill. 554, 559, 196 N.E. 733 (1935); People v. Moyer, 1 Ill.App.3d 245, 247--9, 273 N.E.2d 210 (4th Dist., 1971)). The credit card sales slip in the instant case, which was set forth in the indictment In haec verba by attaching a copy thereto, was clearly capable of defrauding another. It ... ...
-
People v. Dismore
... ... Thus, where the description of the document in itself does not show that it was capable of defrauding, extrinsic facts must be alleged sufficient [33 Ill.App.3d 501] to demonstrate its potential for fraudulent use. People v. Moyer, supra. See also, People v. Ciralsky, 360 Ill. 554, 196 N.E. 733, and Goodman v. People, 228 Ill. 154, 81 N.E. 830 ... We believe that the counts of the forgery indictment fail to meet this standard. In each count of the indictment the 'document apparently capable of defrauding' is simply alleged to be either a Guest ... ...
-
People v. Johnson
...give rise to the inference that defendant intended to deliver the counterfeit funds discovered on his person. See People v. Ciralsky , 360 Ill. 554, 560-61, 196 N.E. 733 (1935) (holding the evidence was insufficient to find the defendant guilty of forgery). Although the evidence here raises......