People v. Quidd

• Decision Date: 24 March 1949
• Docket Number: No. 30911.,30911.
• Citation: 403 Ill. 15,85 N.E.2d 179
• Parties: PEOPLE v. QUIDD.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

403 Ill. 15

85 N.E.2d 179

PEOPLE

v.QUIDD.

No. 30911.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

March 24, 1949.

Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Charles E. Byrne, Judge.

Paul Quidd was convicted for larceny by embezzlement, and he brings error.

Affirmed.

Maximilian J. St. George, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

Ivan A. Elliott, Atty. Gen., and John S. Boyle, State's Atty., of Chicago (John T. Gallagher, W.S. Miroslawski, Arthur F. Manning and Clement D. Cody, all of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

CRAMPTON, Justice.

Plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was indicted in the criminal court of Cook County for the crime of larceny by embezzlement.He was tried on two counts of the indictment, the offense charged in each relating to the same transaction.The first court charged embezzlement by public officer or his agent or servant, and the second count charged embezzlement as agent.Upon a trial by a jury he was found guilty upon both counts, and the value of the property stolen was stated to be $495.After overruling motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment the court sentenced him to the penitentiary for not less than three nor more than six years on each count.He has sued out this writ of error to review the record, assigning as error an insufficiency of evidence, prejudicial remarks of the State's Attorney in his argument to the jury, the giving and refusing of certain instructions, and the sentencing on two counts each of which related to the same offense.

The evidence on behalf of the prosecution disclosed that during the time in question defendant was employed as senior clerk in the psychopathic division of the Cook County hospital.A branch of the county court is held in the same building three times a week, for the purpose of adjudicating questions of insanity.When a patient is brought into the hospital his clothing and whatever valuables he had on his person are taken by an attendant, who places the money, jewelry or other small articles into an envelope and seals it with scotch tape.A list of its contents is made on the envelope, which is then signed by the attendant, the nurse on duty and the person who brought the patient to the hospital.The envelope is thereafter brought to the clerk at the office, who copies the entry on the envelope into a book known as the ‘Property Book,’ under the patient's name and number, and places the envelope into the vault.If the patient is thereafter committed to an institution his property is turned over to a custodian of property designated by the Department of Public Welfare, who transfers it to the institution to which the patient is committed.In addition to defendant, a junior clerk, the warden and the doctor in charge knew the combination of the vault and had keys to the inside door thereof.

On January 29, 1947, one Mary Domino was brought to the hospital by her son, Edward Domino.Part of her property consisted of $495.09 in cash.The nurse took the money, counted it in the presence of the son and the attendant, placed it in an envelope and sealed it with gummed tape.The envelope was then signed by the nurse, the attendant and the son, and was delivered by the nurse to defendant at his office.

On February 4, Mary Domino was adjudged insane and ordered to an insane asylum.Her husband, James Domino, and her son Edward who had been in the courtroom during the hearing, went out into the corridor, where they were engaged in conversation by defendant.He told them that if Mrs. Domino's money were sent to the insane asylum with her it would likely be used for purposes not to her advantage and never be seen again, and suggested that it be left under his care in the vault.The husband and son assented, and inquired as to when they could get it back.To this defendant did not give a definite answer but replied ‘that all depends.’The husband and son then left the hospital.

On or about May 26 an auditor, upon making an examination of the contents of the vault, discovered the envelope and found it contained only nine cents.None of the money had been turned over to the representative of the Department of Public Welfare.Upon the envelope there appeared a notation in defendant's handwriting: ‘Opened for son 2-4-47-P. Quidd.’The son testified that he did not ask or authorize defendant to open the envelope and extract any money therefrom.In the property book a purported notation of receipt appeared as follows: ‘216940 number.Name Mary Domino.Env. with cash $495.09.1 pr. glasses, 1 green set ring, 1 band ring, 1 meat roast thermometer.Yellow Pocket knife 3 keys, 1 pr. tweezers, blk. purse.John Domino.’This entry, except for the names Mary Domino and John Domino, was in defendant's handwriting.The father and son each testified he did not write the name John Domino in the property book and did not receive the money.

The evidence for defendant...