People v. Schnepp
| Citation | 362 Ill. 495,200 N.E. 338 |
| Decision Date | 19 February 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 23351.,23351. |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. SCHNEPP. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Sangamon County; Lawrence E. Stone, Judge.
John S. Schnepp was convicted of embezzlement, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
W. St. John Wines and William Creighton Wines, both of Springfield, for plaintiff in error.
Otto Kerner, Atty. Gen., A. H. Greening, State's Atty., of Springfield, A. B. Dennis, of Danville, and Thomas W. Hoopes, of Springfield, for the People.
John S. Schnepp has prosecuted a writ of error from this count to review his conviction in the circuit court of Sangamon county upon a charge of embezzlement.
The indictment contains three counts. The first count charges that Schnepp was the conservator of Mary M. Ettinger, and that he embezzled a check, belonging to his ward, dated December 9, 1931, for $20,258 on the Ridgely Farmers State Bank of Springfield, drawn by the Illinois Power Company, and payable to him as such conservator. The second count charges the embezzlement of $20,258 of the money of his ward. The third count charges the embezzlement of the proceeds of the check.
On December 9, 1931, by virtue of an order of the probate court, defendant sold to the Illinois Power Company 200 shares of its capital stock, belonging to his ward, and received in payment therefor the check in controversy. On the same day he deposited it in the First National Bank of Springfield to his personal account. At that time he had an overdraft of $1,138.71 which was absorbed, and, at intervals, he checked against the account, so that by December 17, all of the balance was exhausted except $822.74. On the next day the probate judge entered an order requiring him to file a report in the estate of his ward by January 28, 1932. He filed a report showing the receipt of the money from the sale of the stock and also a balance due of $31,827.16. A part of the balance was shown to consist of a mortgage for $1,000 and twelve notes of $1,000 each.
Benjamin S. De Boice, probate judge, testified he told defendant on the day the report was filed, that he wanted to see him the next morning; that when defendant came to his office the witness asked him if the balance shown as cash on hand was in the bank, and defendant replied that it was not; that he then asked him where it was, and defendant said, ‘I used it’; that the witness asked how long it would take to get the money back into the estate, and defendant said, ‘I will have it for you by Monday.’ The witness then told him he wanted the money back in the estate and that he was going to have him invest it in government bonds, to which the defendant replied, ‘Very well,’ and left the office. The next time Judge De Boice saw defendant was in February, 1935, when he was brought into the circuit court room after his arrest. On cross-examination, the witness was asked if, when he told defendant he wanted the money invested in government bonds, defendant offered some other investment. An objection to the question was interposed. Outside of the presence of the jury the witness testified that between January 18 and 28 defendant informally presented to him a petition, which was never filed or acted upon, for leave to invest $30,000 of his ward's funds in a real estate mortgage to be executed by a man named Shaffer on two pieces of business property in Springfield; that from his examination of the title in an abstract office he found Schnepp owned one of the properties and Shaffer had title to the other one, subject to redemption; he did not examine the decree of foreclosure and did not know that $20,000 in Shaffer notes were not merged in the mortgage; that his investigation showed the value of the property was only $45,000 and he would not have approved the loan. The court ruled that the testimony amounted to proof of an offer of restitution and excluded the evidence. The ruling was correct.
Soon after this occurrence, defendant disappeared, and several witnesses testified to his absence from the state for a sufficient period to toll the statute of limitations. Three of them testified to conversations with defendant in which he stated he went from New York City in September, 1934, to Los Angeles, Cal., where he remained until his arrest in February, 1935; that on his way he stopped in Illinois to attend the World's Fair; that he had suffered loss of memory; that his journeys were in an effort to learn his identity; and that he had obtained a job selling newspapers on a prominent corner in Los Angeles in the hope of encountering some one who would recognize him. Defendant's evidence consisted of the testimony of several witnesses as to his good reputation.
It is urged that the bank was apprised, by the face of the check, that the fund which it represented belonged to the estate of Mary M. Ettinger and that defendant held it in trust for his ward; that no disbursement by the bank or entry upon its books could diminish the fund or affect her rights; that the integrity of the fund is unimpaired; that, so far as she is concerned, it is still in the bank, and therefore no embezzlement has occurred. The essence of the crime of embezzlement consists in the conversion to his own use of funds of another in the defendant's possessionby reason of a fiduciary relation between him and the owner. The crime is complete when there is a fraudulent conversion by the accused without the owner's consent. People v. Mooney, 303 Ill. 469, 135 N.E. 776. The uncontradicted testimony shows such a conversion by defendant. Whether or not the bank had notice that the money belonged to defendant's ward, and whether or not she may recover the fund, cannot relieve him from the consequences of his wrongful act. People v. Dean, 321 Ill. 128, 151 N.E. 505.
It is next contended that the facts in this case do not warrant an indictment or conviction under section 74 of the Criminal Code (Smith-Hurd Ann.St. c. 38,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Curoe
...the estate file in defendant's own office. In this respect defendant's conduct is similar to that of the defendant in People v. Schnepp (1936), 362 Ill. 495, 200 N.E. 338. There the supreme court upheld the embezzlement conviction of a conservator who had deposited a check from the sale of ......
-
Estate of Shlensky v. Commissioner
...conversion without the owner's consent. People v. Riggins, 13 Ill. 2d 134, 148 N.E. 2d 450, 452 (1958); People v. Schnepp, 362 Ill. 495, 200 N.E. 338, 339-340 (1936); People v. Mooney, 303 Ill. 469, 135 N.E. 776, 777 (1922). Embezzlement involves secrecy and concealment of conversion, and t......
-
People v. Barrett
... ... As pointed out in People v. Schnepp, 362 Ill. 495, 200 N.E. 338, embezzlement may, and often does, consist of many acts done in a series of months or even years. The charge of duplicity is not well founded ... Defendant's next allegation of error is that the proofs show that the indictment is barred by the ... ...
-
People v. Gordon
...effect, amount to a conversion or embezzlement of the fund so in his hands.' 123 Ill. 624, 629--30, 15 N.E. 37, 39; see People v. Schnepp, 362 Ill. 495, 200 N.E. 338; Woods v. People, 222 Ill. 293, 78 N.E. 607; see also People v. Menagas, 367 Ill. 330, 11 N.E.2d 403. We cannot accept the de......