People v. Donohue
| Decision Date | 17 October 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 24709.,24709. |
| Citation | 369 Ill. 558,17 N.E.2d 21 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. DONOHUE. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Robert Jerome Dunne, Judge.
Timothy F. Donohue was convicted of embezzlement of a check, and he brings error.
Judgment affirmed.Frank A. McDonnell and Edward J. Callahan, both of Chicago (Elwyn E. Long, of Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
Otto Kerner, Atty. Gen., Thomas J. Courtney, State's Atty., of Chicago, and A. B. Dennis, of Danville (Edward E. Wilson, John T. Gallagher, Melvin S. Rembe, Blair L. Varnes, and William B. Crawford, all of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
The defendant, Timothy F. Donohue, was indicted in the criminal court of Cook county for embezzlement of a check of the value of $2767.77. He waived trial by jury, was tried before the court and was found guilty. Motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were overruled. He has sued out this writ of error.
On May 18, 1937, the defendant was an assistant cashier in the bureau of water of the city of Chicago, having been so employed for a period of four years. His duties were to collect all items turned over to him for the payment of water bills by the water users of Chicago. During a portion of each day he received cash payments, usually amounting to between three and four thousand dollars, made in person at the office of the bureau of water. In addition to handling these over-the-counter collections, the defendant each day received payments of water bills that were transmitted through the mails. At the close of each business day, it was the defendant's duty to deposit with the head cashier of the bureau of water all collections made by him. The total amount of the deposits had to balance with the total amount of the vouchers which had been marked paid and transmitted by the defendant to the registration department on that particular day.
It was the custom of many large water users to pay their water bills several days ahead of the discount date. Those who paid in this way mailed their vouchers, together with their checks, and retained their bills as office invoices.
An agent of the International Harvester Company testified that on May 6, 1937, the witness mailed to the bureau of water of Chicago a check in the amount of $2836.62 along with two vouchers totalling that amount. The due date of these vouchers was May 18, 1937. This check was endorsed by the defendant for payment and deposited May 11, 1937. The account of the International Harvester Company was charged with the above amount on May 13, 1937. The check was sent through, without the accompanying voucher, prior to the due date, in order that the defendant might cover certain items of cash taken by him prior to that time.
On May 14, 1937, the defendant received in his mail collections a check of the Indiana Harbor Belt Railway Company made payable to the bureau of water in the amount of $2767.77 and dated May 13, 1937. This was the check upon which the indictment was predicated. The check was accompanied by a voucher showing a net bill due on or before May 26, 1937, of the Indiana Harbor Belt Railway Company, in the above amount. The vouchers of the International Harvester Company became due on May 18, 1937, and so, on that date, the defendant reported as a collection item $2836.62, due and payable on that date by the International Harvester Company. The defendant had previously sent through for collection, on May 13, the check which was intended to pay the water bill of the International Harvester Company to cover a prior cash defalcation. Thus, being short the amount of such check, he used the check of the Indiana Harbor Belt Railway Company to pay the water bill of the International Harvester Company, and thereby temporarily balanced his own account.
Section 80 of the Criminal Code, Ill.Rev.Stat.1937, chap. 38, § 214, provides: ‘If any state, county, township, city, town, village, or other officer elected or appointed under the constitution or laws of this state, or any clerk, agent, servant or employee of any such officer, embezzles or fraudulently converts to his own use, or fraudulently takes or secretes with intent so to do, any money, bonds, mortgages, coupons, bank bills, notes, warrants, orders, funds or securities, books of record, or of accounts, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Survis v. A. Y. McDonald Mfg. Co.
...177 Iowa 457, 159 N.W. 260; People v. Forman, 67 Cal.App. 693, 228 P. 378; State v. Dubois, 98 Utah 234, 98 P.2d 354; People v. Donohue, 369 Ill. 558, 17 N.E.2d 21; Commonwealth v. Hackney, 117 Pa.Super. 519, 178 A. 417; Watson v. State, 158 Tenn. 212, 12 S.W.2d 375; DuPuy v. State, 135 Tex......
-
People v. Barrett
...was the application to his own use, and not to the use of the university.' Also similar to the present case is that of People v. Donohue, 369 Ill. 558, 17 N.E.2d 21, wherein Donohue's use of a check received in the normal course of business to cover up a prior shortage in his accounts, was ......
- People v. Vinci
-
People v. O'Connell
...It was not necessary that plaintiff in error be shown to have been himself occupying an office created by statute. People v. Donohue, 369 Ill. 558, 17 N.E.2d 21. It was proper to admit evidence of other transactions with bonds similarly deposited with the commission as such evidence was com......