People v. Hauck
| Decision Date | 06 February 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 23088.,23088. |
| Citation | 199 N.E. 821,362 Ill. 266 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. HAUCK. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Morgan County; Lawrence E. Stone, Judge.
Louis P. Hauck was convicted of secreting with intent to embezzle, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
Edward Pree, of Springfield, for plaintiff in error.
Otto Kerner, Atty. Gen., W. H. Absher, State's Attorney, of Jacksonville, and A. B. Dennis, of Danville, for the People.
An indictment in the circuit court of Morgan county charged Louis P. Hauck, while being an agent and clerk of the city treasurer of the city of Jacksonville, with embezzlement of, and secreting with intent to embezzle, $1,154.90 of city funds. A bill of particulars was filed specifying that the funds mentioned in each count were special assessment funds and general funds of the city; that they were in or came into defendant's possession between February 28 and May 3, 1931, and that the offenses charged occurred between March 16 and September 1, 1931.
Defendant was tried by a jury. Two verdicts were returned—one finding him guilty of embezzlement, and the other finding him guilty of concealing with intent to embezzle, and fixing the amount embezzled or secreted at $983.50. On motion of the state's attorney the trial court entered judgment on the verdict, finding defendant guilty of secreting with intent to embezzle, and sentenced him to the penitentiary.
Defendant was the assistant or agent of Harry K. Chenoweth, city treasurer, whose term of office expired May 1, 1931. He served in a like capacity under Chenoweth's predecessors from 1926 or 1927, and continued in the service under Chenoweth's successor, Harold C. Clement,until November, 1932. The city treasurers were usually bank employees, and defendant was instrusted with the collection and disbursement of all city funds, including special assessments. It was his duty to make deposits of the funds in the Ayers National Bank to the credit of the city treasurer and to make up his monthly reports. Chenoweth checked only the balances reported. In general, defendant managed and handled all of the work of the office. He used a card system for the recording of special assessments collected. There was an individual card for each property owner against whose property special assessments had been levied, showing the amount thereof, the number of the assessment, and other data. Payments of installments were entered on the cards, with the date of their receipt. Approximately five hundred of these cards showing payments in the month of March, 1931, and approximately one hundred more showing payments during the month of April, 1931, were admitted in evidence as People's Exhibits 3 and 4. People's Exhibits 1 and 2 are the reports of receipts and disbursements of the city treasurer for the months of March and April, 1931, prepared and filed with the city clerk by defendant. There is a discrepancy of $940.98 between the amount shown by the special assessments cards to have been collected and the amount reported to the city council as having been received for special assessments in April.
During the months of May, June, October, November, and December, 1933, and January, May, and June, 1934, the records of the city were audited by Orval Diehl, a certified public accountant. In December, 1933, and January, 1934, he audited the special assessment records of the city. These audits covered a period of several years. He made a supplemental audit for the month of April, 1931. His report showed a shortage of $1,154.94 in special assessment funds for that month, and a copy was furnished the city attorney of Jacksonville. Various conferences were thereafter held between defendant, certain public accountants, officers of the city, and the state's attorney prior to the time defendant was indicted.
Some time during February, 1934, Chenoweth informed defendant the city attorney had reported to him the existence of a deficit in a special assessment account and asked him if he knew anything about it. Defendant denied any knowledge of the alleged discrepancy and agreed to check up the account. Later, at a meeting held in the jury room at the courthouse, Chenoweth, Diehl, the mayor, the city attorney, the state's attorney, and defendant were present. The accountants had their reports, and defendant was asked if he could explain the shortages. He said he would not accept their figures and was given two weeks to make an audit. In the conversation he told Diehl the entries on the assessment cards were correct. Shortly after the meeting in the courthouse the city attorney and state's attorney had a conversation with defendant at the city attorney's office relative to the alleged shortage for the month of April in the special assessment records. Defendant admitted he had taken in the month of April substantially the amount shown in the supplemental audit, although he did not know whether it was exactly right. He said that as the case and checks came in he put them into a small box, and after he had made his report he took the cash that was left in the box, put it away, and used it. He took only cash. At this meeting Diehl's supplemental report was spread out on the desk, and the separate months and amounts shown on page 3 were exhibited to defendant. The amount received in April was pointed out, and he was asked whether he had gotten that money and if the amount was correct as shown. He said that he did not know whether it was correct but that it was substantially so and that he got the money.
By an arrangement with the city officers, Chenoweth employed Price, Waterhouse & Co. to audit the books. H. O. Fechener, of that firm, made the audit. During the audit Fechener and defendant came to Chenoweth's office. Defendant said he could not explain some of the items on the assessment roll. Chenoweth told him that if he could not explain them there must be something wrong. Defendant said, ‘It looks like it.’ He did not tell them what the trouble was. At Chenoweth's suggestion Judge H. P. Samuell came to the office and defendant talked alone with him for some time. Fechener and Chenoweth were than called in. Defendant admitted he was entirely to blame for the shortage and that no one else was involved. He said he had been speculating, and promised restitution of a large part of the shortage. He offered to raise $35,000 or more. That evening he turned over to Chenoweth between $20,000 and $21,000 of special assessment bonds, and the next morning he paid Judge Samuell $900 in cash. The followingMonday a check for an amount between $15,000 and $16,000 was likewise turned over to Samuell, and on several other occasions defendant turned over to Samuell other moneys and securities but did not make full restitution. He never turned over to Chenoweth any funds, money, or bonds belonging in the city treasury, other than as set forth in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Canada
...... People v. Allen, 17 Ill.2d 55, 62--63, 160 N.E.2d 818; People v. Ciucci, 8 Ill.2d 619, 625, 137 N.E.2d 40; People v. Hauck, 362 Ill. 266, 273, 199 N.E. 821. That the jury was given unrestricted time to examine the chart in question immediately prior to retiring to the [81 Ill.App.2d 234] jury room leaves us convinced that the court did not abuse its discretion and that no prejudice resulted to the defendant by virtue ......
-
People v. Arendarczyk, 24318.
......There was evidence, contrary to the defendant's contention, which tended to establish the corpus delicti independent of the alleged confession. If the confession had been properly admitted in evidence, it could also have been used to establish the corpus delicti. People v. Hauck, 362 Ill. 266, 199 N.E. 821. In that case we held that the well-established rule is that, although a defendant's confession, standing alone, is insufficient to sustain a conviction if the corpus delicti is not otherwise proved, yet this does not mean that the corpus delicti must be proved by the ......
- First National Bank of Green River v. Barrett
-
People v. Diekelmann, 24192.
......People v. Gillespie, supra; People v. Hauck, 362 Ill. 266, 199 N.E. 821;People v. Harrison, 261 Ill. 517, 104 N.E. 259. It is contended that even if the confession was voluntary, those parts of it which related to other offenses, should have been deleted. If there can be no separation of the relevant and irrelevant parts, ......