People v. Gallowich

Decision Date17 April 1918
Docket NumberNo. 11555.,11555.
Citation283 Ill. 360,119 N.E. 283
PartiesPEOPLE v. GALLOWICH.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Hugo Pam, Judge.

Hyman Gallowich was convicted of obtaining money by means of a confidence game, and he brings error. Reversed.

Carter, C. J., dissenting.

B. M. Shaffner, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

Edward J. Brundage, Atty. Gen., and Maclay Hoyne, State's Atty., of Chicago (George C. Bliss, of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

CRAIG, J.

In an indictment containing two counts returned by the grand jury of Cook county, plaintiff in error, Hyman Gallowich, was charged in the first count with obtaining $200 from Rosie Janos by means of the confidence game, and the second count charged him with larceny in taking the money or property of Rosie Janos. A trial was had before a jury in the criminal court of Cook county. Plaintiff in error was found guilty under the first count of the indictment. Judgment was entered on the verdict, and he has sued out this writ of error to review the judgment of the criminal court.

Numerous errors are assigned on the record, but in the view we take of the case it is only necessary to consider one of them, that the verdict is contrary to the evidence.

The testimony on behalf of the people, relied on to sustain the conviction, is that of the prosecuting witness, Rosie Janos, and her niece, Julia Paucky. From the testimony of Mrs. Janos, who was a property owner, it appears that both she and the plaintiff in error had been largely engaged in furnishing bonds for persons who had been arrested and accused of crime. In the course of their dealings plaintiff in error had become indebted to Mrs. Janos in the sum of $200, and she sent word to him to pay it, and he suggested to her that he would get her a bond to sign so she could get back the money he owed. She informed him that she could not sign a bond because Michael Frank, whose bond she had previously signed, had failed to appear for trial and his bond had been forfeited. She further testified that a few weeks afterward plaintiff in error came to her house and informed her that if she did not give him $200 to give the judge, she would lose the property she had scheduled as surety on Frank's bond, and requested her to bring the $200 to the criminal court building. Mrs. Janos borrowed $200, and with her niece, Miss Paucky, went to the criminal court building. She met plaintiff in error there, but she insisted on giving the $200 to the judge herself. Plaintiff in error informed her that the judge was not allowed to take the money in his own office, because, as he expressed it, he would be chased out from his work.’ He told her to wait in the corridor, and he would bring the judge over. He left and returned in about 15 minutes and took Mrs. Janos and her niece into another room. A man came into this room, and there was some talk about the forfeiture of the bond, but it does not appear that this man was represented as the judge, and nothing was said about turning over the money to him. Plaintiff in error again requested Mrs. Janos to give him the money so he could give it to the judge, but she again refused, and insisted on giving it to the judge herself. Finally plaintiff in error asked her if she had the money. She opened her purse and showed him the money, and when he saw the money he grabbed it and ran out to the elevator, and Mrs. Janos and her niece ran after him but were unable to catch up with him, and he got away. The niece, Julia Paucky, testified that her aunt brought the money to the criminal court building, and that she wanted to give it to the judge; that Mrs. Janos asked, ‘Where is the judge?’ and plaintiff in error said, ‘Well, you cannot give it to him; I have got to give it to him;’ and her aunt took the money out of her pocketbook, and plaintiff in error grabbed the money and ran to the elevator, and she and Mrs. Janos followed him to the elevator, but he was gone. This, in substance, is the evidence on behalf of the people.

The plaintiff in error testified that he was well acquainted with Mrs. Janos, and had known her about eight years; that they lived about half a block apart and had become well acquainted in the business of signing bonds; that Mrs. Janos had come to see him about the bond of Michael Frank, which had been forfeited, and that afterward she met him at the criminal court building and gave him the $200 to assist her in getting Frank apprehended and the forfeiture of his bond set aside; that he paid an attorney $75 and spent about four weeks with the other surety and with the sheriff looking for Frank, and finally through his attorney succeeded in locating him and getting him apprehended and in custody, and had the forfeiture set aside on the payment of costs, amounting to $48; that he continued to do business with Mrs. Janos after he received the $200, and had been with her in the state's attorney's office on several different occasions since that time; that he never mentioned anything to her about fixing a judge or any court officer, and that he kept the balance of the money she gave him, except the $75 he paid Frank's attorney and $48 court costs, for his services. Plaintiff in error is corroborated to some extent by a witness named Brady, who saw the parties in the criminal court building, and by the deputy clerk of the criminal court, and by the records of that court as to the setting aside of the default on the Michael Frank bond.

Under the evidence it is clear that the conviction of the plaintiff in error for obtaining money by means of the confidence game cannot stand. The confidence game is any swindling operation in which advantage is taken of the confidence reposed by the victim in the swindler. Morton v. People, 47 Ill. 468;Maxwell v. People, 158 Ill. 248, 41 N. E. 995;Du Bois v. People, 200 Ill. 157, 65 N. E. 658,93 Am. St. Rep. 183;People v. Depew, 237 Ill. 574, 86 N.E. 1090. In People v. Talmage, 233 Ill. 560, 84 N. E. 655, we...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • People v. Gould
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • June 3, 1936
    ...is not warranted. People v. Snyder, supra; People v. Ingravallo, 309 Ill. 498, 141 N.E. 176; People v. Koelling, supra; People v. Gallowich, 283 Ill. 360, 119 N.E. 283. Expressions may be found in some opinions of this court indicating that the crime of confidence game is established by pro......
  • State v. Allen
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • October 11, 1954
    ...is not warranted. People v. Snyder, supra; People v. Ingravallo, 309 Ill. 498, 141 N.E. 176; People v. Koelling, supra; People v. Gallowich, 283 Ill. 360, 119 N.E. 283. Expressions may be found in some opinions of this court indicating that the crime of confidence game is established by pro......
  • People v. Brand
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • May 20, 1953
    ...victim's parting with his money or property and giving it to the accused must be the confidence reposed in the accused. People v. Gallowich, 283 Ill. 360, 119 N.E. 283. There is no basis for the defendant's contention that there was a mere breach of an ordinary business contract honestly en......
  • People v. Lewis
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • September 24, 1959
    ...The moving cause for the victim's parting with his money or property must be the confidence reposed in the accused. People v. Gallowich, 283 Ill. 360, 364, 119 N.E. 283. The evidence in this record leaves no doubt in our minds that defendant made false and fraudulent representations to his ......
  • 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