People v. Koloski

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: FARMER
• Citation: People v. Koloski, 309 Ill. 468, 141 N.E. 163 (Ill. 1923)
• Decision Date: 20 October 1923
• Docket Number: No. 15402.,15402.
• Parties: PEOPLE v. KOLOSKI.

309 Ill. 468

141 N.E. 163

PEOPLE

v.KOLOSKI.

No. 15402.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 20, 1923.

Error to Circuit Court, Montgomery County; T. M. Jett, Judge.

John Koloski was convicted of receiving stolen property, and he brings error.

Reversed and remanded.

Miller, Major & Major, of Hillsboro, for plaintiff in error.

Edwrd J. Brundage, Atty. Gen., Frank M. Ramey, State's Atty., of Hillsboro, and James B. Searcy, of Springfield (Lester K. Vandever, of Nokomis, of counsel), for the People.

FARMER, C. J.

Plaintiff in error, John Koloski, alias Collaski, was indicted by the grand jury of Montgomery county for receiving stolen property (an automobile), of the value of $700, the property of Joseph Moritz, to prevent the owner from again possessing it, then and there well knowing the automobile had been stolen. He was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary, and has sued out this writ of error.

The errors argued in plaintiff in error's brief are: (1) The evidence is not sufficient to warrant a conviction; (2) erroneous in structions were given for the people; (3) the state's attorney made improper and prejudicial remarks in his argument to the jury.

Joseph Moritz drove his car, a Cleveland Six, to the Kortkamp mine, where he worked, September 28, 1922. When he quit work, about 9:30 o'clock at night, the car was gone. He did not see it again until he, William Woods, Pink Fleming, deputy sheriff, and Jack Skinn found it in the barn of the plaintiff in error in Panama, Montgomery county, October 5. The four men, in two cars, drove to Panama the night of October 5, looking for the stolen car. They first went to the house of Tony Moreland, and then drove to the house of plaintiff in error, who was a coal miner in Panama. It was about midnight when the party arrived at the house of plaintiff in error. He and his family were in bed. Woods and Skinn went to the door, knocked, and called plaintiff in error out of bed. When he came to the door, Woods asked him if he had a car, and he answered he had a Ford. Woods asked if they could see it, and plaintiff in error said they could, and went to the barn with them. When they saw the car, Skinn, who knew the Moritz car, told Woods it was not the car they were looking for. One of the party went around to another part of the barn, and, looking through an opening in the door, saw, with the aid of a flashlight, another car in the barn. They opened the door and the car was Moritz's car. The license plate and bumper had been removed and were in the car. Plaintiff in error told the parties two men, who were strangers, came to his house one night and asked permission to leave the car in his barn, and that he permitted them to do so. Woods and Skinn testified he said the car was left in his barn about two weeks before the night they found the car. Skinn testified the door where the car was found was fastened by a timber nailed across it, and he removed it.

Plaintiff in error testified he had lived in Panama 10 or 12 years, and most all that time had been a coal miner. He told about officers coming to his house after he was in bed, and about their finding in his barn the car they said they were looking for. He testified that about midnight, two days before, two men came to his house, called him out of bed, and said his neighbor, Baphista Malugani, had directed them to him, and said he had a garage they could put their car in. They were strangers, and the one who did the talking spoke pretty good American. They said the car was not running well, and they would come and get it the next day or the day after. Plaintiff in error told them they could put the car in his barn. He did not go with them to the barn, as he was only partly dressed. He started to the mine 20 minutes before 6 in the morning, and returned about half past 4 in the afternoon. He said he never did anything to the car while it was in his barn; that the doors where it was were never nailed. Plaintiff in error spoke very poor English, and said he could not explain very well how the doors were fastened, but said he put a 2x4 through, and that locked it. He denied he told the officers the men brought the car to his barn two weeks before, and testified he told them it was two days before. He denied having anything to do with stealing the car, denied any knowledge that it was stolen, and denied he was trying to conceal it.

Mrs. Baphista Malugani testified she lived in Panama, about a block from plaintiff in error. She learned of the time the officers came to his house. A few nights before that, about midnight, two men came to the house where witness, her husband, and children lived, and knocked at the door. Her husband got out of bed and went to the door. He does not talk good English, and called the witness to come and talk to the men. They asked if witness had a garage they could put their car in. The car was standing out in front of the house. The witness told the men she could not accommodate them, but referred them to plaintiff in error, and directed them where he lived. They went in the direction of his house. This was two or three days before the officers came.

Baphista Malugani testified about the two men coming to his house and calling him out of bed. He went to the door and called for his wife to come. The men were looking for a place to leave their car. The men talked American language, and witness' wife talked to them, because he could not understand very well. He did not understand all that was said, but heard his wife talk about plaintiff in error. She said he had an empty barn.

The foregoing is...