People v. Konkowski, 26310.

CourtSupreme Court of Illinois
Citation378 Ill. 616,39 N.E.2d 13
Docket NumberNo. 26310.,26310.
PartiesPEOPLE v. KONKOWSKI et al.
Decision Date15 January 1942

378 Ill. 616
39 N.E.2d 13

PEOPLE
v.
KONKOWSKI et al.

No. 26310.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Nov. 18, 1941.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 15, 1942.


Error to Second Division, Appellate Court, First District, on Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; William J. Lindsay, Judge.

Frank E. Konkowski and Stephen Idzikowski were convicted of conspiracy to cheat and defraud. The conviction was affirmed by the Appellate Court, 308 Ill.App. 470, 32 N.E.2d 352, and defendants bring error.

Affirmed.

[39 N.E.2d 14]

Walker Butler and Donald E. Blodgett, both of Chicago, for plaintiffs in error.

George F. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and Thomas J. Courtney, State's Atty., of Chicago (Edward E. Wilson, John T. Gallagher, Melvin S. Rembe, and William B. Crawford, all of Chicago, of counsel), for defendant in error.

[39 N.E.2d 15]


GUNN, Justice.

Plaintiffs in error, Frank E. Konkowski and Stephen Idzikowski, were convicted by a jury in the criminal court of Cook county of conspiracy to cheat and defraud one Edward Rozek of certain money. They were each sentenced to the penitentiary, and the judgment of the criminal court was affirmed by the Appellate Court for the First District. The cause comes to this court on writ of error to the Appellate Court.

The evidence produced by the People tended to show that the defendants induced the complaining witness to believe that for the sum of $600 they could have him placed on the eligible police list qualifying him for appointment on the police force of the city of Chicago. The defendant Konkowski, an attorney, was an alderman and ward committeeman. Idzikowski was a precinct captain. Application was made by Charles Rozek to Idzikowski, who was a friend of the family, to take the civil service examination for policeman. The testimony shows that Rozek was told that he would have no chance to pass the examination unless money was paid. On May 7, 1936, Idzikowski took Charles Rozek to Konkowski's office, talked to him out of the presence of Rozek and the next day came to the Rozek home where he was handed a wallet containing $600. Idzikowski then took Rozek to Konkowski's office, entered the private office, came out a few moments later with Konkowski and introduced him to Charles Rozek. Konkowski told him he would be a policeman. After this had occurred it was decided by the family that Edward Rozek was the one who should be a policeman instead of Charles, and this fact was communicated to Konkowski and agreed to by him. Evidence was also offered that at least six other persons paid one or the other of the defendants from $500 to $600, each, to be placed upon the elibile police list. This evidence was for the purpose of showing motive and course of conduct upon the part of the defendants.

In July, 1938, Edward Rozek testified he went to the office of Konkowski and asked him what was holding up the list, and he was told it would be up shortly. Konkowski was then asked ‘What donation did Steve Idzikowski give you?’ and his reply was ‘How much was he supposed to?’ and when told $600 he sent the complaining witness to Idzikowski requesting him to come immediately to the office. Konkowski and Idzikowski went into the inner office, and in about five minutes called the complaining witness and told him he had nothing to worry about, and that everything was taken care of, and that his name was on the list, and later Idzikowski told him he would be one of the first 300.

In September, 1938, the list was published and Edward Rozek's name was not on it. He claims he made demand of Konkowski for a return of the money, and was told he would get it at the end of the week. On April 16, 1939, an emissary of Idzikowski by the name of Weidebusch, called upon the Rozek family and offered to return $500 if they would come down to court and cause the complaint to be dismissed. While at the Rozek home Weidebusch was arrested. He had in his possession $400 in currency which he turned over to one of the officers.

Both of the defendants took the witness stand and denied the truth of the facts set forth above. They admitted knowledge and acquaintance with the complaining witness and the several other persons who claimed they had paid money to get their names placed upon the eligible list. Evidence was also introduced by the defendants showing the reputation of both defendants for honesty and integrity was good. A fuller and more detailed statement of the facts may be found in the opinion of the Appellate Court. People v. Konkowski, 308 Ill.App. 470, 32 N.E.2d 352.

The first point made by the plaintiffs in error is that since the Statute of Limitations, Ill.Rev.Stats.1939, c. 38, § 631, for conspiracy is eighteen months, and the $600 was received by plaintiffs in error on May 8, 1936, and the indictment returned on May 19, 1939, it was the duty of the court to discharge plaintiffs in error. The point was not raised at the time of the trial, but the question was raised for the first time on a motion for a new trial. Plaintiffs in error claim the unlawful object of the conspiracy was to obtain money by false pretenses. The indictment charged a ‘conspiracy to cheat and defraud.’ The question raised by this assignment of error is whether a conspiracy to cheat and defraud is the same as a conspiracy to obtain money by false pretenses. It is claimed the offense of conspiring to obtain money by false pretenses is complete when the money

[39 N.E.2d 16]

of the victim is obtained, and the Statute of Limitations then begins to run, because thereafter nothing can be done in furtherance of the object which had already been accomplished.

Cheating is a different offense from that of false pretenses. Cheating is an offense at common law. 4 Blackstone, 157; 2 Hawkins Pleas of the Crown, chap. 23, sec. 1; 3 Greenleaf on Evidence, chap. 9...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • People v. Casas, Docket No. 120797
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • 5 Diciembre 2017
    ...94 (1950) ), and conspiracy ( People v. Cooper , 239 Ill.App.3d 336, 357, 179 Ill.Dec. 873, 606 N.E.2d 705 (1992) ; People v. Konkowski , 378 Ill. 616, 621, 39 N.E.2d 13 (1941) ).¶ 24 The plain language of the statute indicates that the offense of violation of bail bond is committed on the ......
  • People v. St. Pierre, s. 59349 and 59350
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 22 Enero 1975
    ...... (People v. Nowak (1970), 45 Ill.2d 158, 168--169, 258 N.E.2d 313, 318; People v. Konkowski (1941), 378 Ill. 616, 39 N.E.2d 13.) There was no evidence in the record that the witness, Larry Bolton, had knowledge or an intent to further the illegal purpose of the defendants in this case. The facts are clear that Larry Bolton merely witnessed a murder. Therefore, the trial court did not ......
  • People v. Casas
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 14 Abril 2016
    ...exception to the statute of limitations applies in certain instances, such as where the crime is conspiracy (People v. Konkowski, 378 Ill. 616, 621, 39 N.E.2d 13 (1941) ), embezzlement (People v. Adams, 106 Ill.App.2d 396, 405, 245 N.E.2d 904 (1969) ), criminal contempt (People v. Levinson,......
  • People v. Gibson, 27605.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • 20 Enero 1944
    ......People v. Hauke, 335 Ill. 217, 167 N.E. 1. It is defendant's contention that deceased was the aggressor in the fight; but it is not required that the People's instructions conform to the defendant's theory of the case. People v. Konkowski, 378 Ill. 616, 39 N.E.2d 13.         Instruction No. 20 told the jury that if it believed from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the crime charged was committed and that the defendant, immediately after the commission of the crime charged, fled and remained away until taken into ......
  • 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