People v. Jaraslowski

• Decision Date: 06 June 1912
• Citation: 98 N.E. 547,254 Ill. 299
• Parties: PEOPLE v. JARASLOWSKI.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

254 Ill. 299

98 N.E. 547

PEOPLE

v.JARASLOWSKI.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 18, 1912.

Rehearing Denied June 6, 1912.

Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Kickham Scanlan, Judge.

Karl Jaraslowski sued out a writ of habeas corpus, and brings error to review a judgment remanding him to custody. Affirmed.

E. M. Seymour, for plaintiff in error.

W. H. Stead, Atty. Gen., John E. W. Wayman, State's Atty., Fred H. Hand, and James A. Scott, for the People.

VICKERS, J.

Karl Jaraslowski, plaintiff in error, was found guilty of obtaining money under false pretenses at the September term, 1910, in the criminal court of Cook county, and the court fixed his punishment at imprisonment for one year in the house of correction and imposed a fine of $500, and rendered judgment upon the finding against plaintiff in error and for the costs. After plaintiff in error had served a year in the house of correction, he filed a petition in the circuit court for discharge, under paragraph 455 of the Criminal Code, from that portion of the judgment which required him to work out the fine and costs. The prayer of the petition was denied, and thereupon plaintiff in error sued out a writ of habeas corpus from the circuit court of Cook county. A hearing upon the habeas corpus resulted in plaintiff in error being remanded again to the custody of the superintendent of the house of correction. This writ of error is sued out for the purpose of obtaining a review of the judgment of conviction, and also the judgment of the court in refusing to discharge the petitioner under paragraph 455 of the Criminal Code.

The judgment, in addition to imposing a sentence of one year in the county jail, also ordered and adjudged that plaintiff in error be fined the sum of $500 and all costs of the proceeding, which were taxed at $61.55, and awarded execution therefor, and further provided: ‘In case of the neglect or refusal of the defendant, Karl Jaraslowski, to pay said fine and costs, it is ordered that at the expiration of one year aforesaid said defendant be required to work out said fine and costs, as provided by statute.’ The judgment further directed that, in case said fine and costs were not paid at the expiration of the year, the defendant be required to work out said fine ‘in the house of correction at the rate of $1.50 per day.’ In his petition for discharge as a pauper, under paragraph 455 of the Criminal Code, plaintiff in error alleged that he had no money to pay the fine and costs, and that he was wholly destitute and without any means wherewith to pay the same, and that he was a pauper within the meaning of the statute, and that all ‘legal means had been exhausted to collect the same.’ The court below held that paragraph 455 of the Criminal Code did not apply to a case where by the judgment of the court the defendant was required to work out his fine in accordance with paragraph 168b of the Criminal Code, and this ruling is assigned as error.

[1] Plaintiff in error contends that the judgment of the court requiring him to serve the maximum term in the house of correction, and also to be further retained in said house of correction to work out his fine after the expiration of the year of imprisonment, is erroneous, unless said judgmentbe construed to permit the payment of the fine during the year he is imprisoned as a punishment for the offense. The question thus raised has been determined by this court adversely to the contention of plaintiff in error in the case of Berkenfield v. People, 191 Ill. 272, 61 N. E. 96. In that case the prisoner was convicted of obtaining credit by a false and fraudulent statement in writing as to his financial standing, in violation of section 97 of the Criminal Code. He was sentenced to imprisonment in the county jail of Cook county for the period of one year, and to pay a fine of...