People v. Scowley
Decision Date | 21 October 1933 |
Docket Number | No. 21980.,21980. |
Citation | 187 N.E. 415,353 Ill. 330 |
Parties | PEOPLE v. SCOWLEY. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to First Branch, Appellate Court, First District, on Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; James J. Kelly, Judge.
Andrew A. Scowley was convicted of an offense, and he brings error.
Reversed and remanded.
Elwyn E. Long, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
Otto Kerner, Atty. Gen., Thomas J. Courtney, State's Atty., of Chicago, and J. J. Neiger, of Springfield (Edward E. Wilson and Grenville Beardsley, both of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
Plaintiff in error, Andrew A. Scowley, was found guilty under an indictment charging him with the violation of section 253 of chapter 38 (Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1929, p. 998), which provides: ‘Whoever, with intent to cheat or defraud another, designedly by color of any false token or writing, or by any false pretense, obtains the signature of any person to any written instrument, or obtains from any person any money, personal property or other valuable thing, shall be fined in any sum not exceeding $2,000, and imprisoned not exceeding one year, and shall be sentenced to restore the property so fraudulently obtained, if it can be restored.’
The grand jury returned the indictment in question on November 20, 1931. It was averred, among other things, that Frankie T. Westbrook and the defendant made a written agreement October 22, 1930, under which she was to convey certain Kansas City, Mo., real estate, and in exchange the defendant was to convey to her real estate in Birmingham, Ala., when he acquired title thereto; further, he was to assign a second mortgage in the sum of $30,000, junior to a first mortgage of $42,500 covering other real estate in the city of Birmingham aforesaid, and certain other real estate in said city and state. One of the terms of the contract was that Mrs. Westbrook was to pay off and have released a second mortgage or deed of trust for $20,000 on the Kansas City property. The indictment further charges:
A motion to quash was filed and overruled. As set out in the abstract the motion was general, and the action of the trial court in overruling said motion was correct, for the reason that in our opinion the indictment substantially stated an offense under the foregoing section of the Criminal Code.
Defendant entered his plea of not guilty and the trial was had before a jury, which returned a verdict of guilty. Motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were overruled. The court fixed the punishment at one year in the house of correction and a fine of $2,000. A writ of error was prosecuted from the Appellate Court for the First District and the judgment of the trial court was affirmed. A writ of error was thereupon sued out of this court.
Numerous errors have been assigned by plaintiff in error, the essence of which is that the trial court erred in its rulings on the admission and rejection of evidence; in engaging in the examination of witnesses and their cross-examination, particularly of the plaintiff in error; and that the trial judge displayed a bias during the trial of the case which was manifestly prejudicial to plaintiff in error. It is further urged that the verdict was not supported by the evidence, and that the trial court erred in overruling the motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment.
Frankie T. Westbrook, a woman about seventy-nine years of age, resided in Kansas City, Mo., in 1930, and was interested in various parcels of real estate there and in the state of Alabama. Her daughter, Mrs. Amie H. Priestley, lived in Chillicothe, Ill., and for several years had aided her mother in looking after her real estate as her agent. On January 3, 1930, Mrs. Westbrook appears to have signed a power of attorney to this daughter empowering her to sell, lease, mortgage, and hypothecate all of her real estate wherever situate. The execution of this...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ginesky v. Commissioner, Docket No. 4093-93.
...element of the offense of false pretenses in Illinois is that the accused obtain money with the intent to defraud. People v. Scowley, 353 Ill. 330, 187 N.E. 415 (1933). However, the specific intent to defraud need not be proved by direct evidence, but may be proved by facts and circumstance......
-
Skolnik v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...element of the offense of false pretenses in Illinois is that the accused obtain money with the intent to defraud. People v. Scowley, 353 Ill. 330, 187 N.E. 415 (1933). However, the specific intent to defraud need not be proved by direct evidence, but may be proved by facts and circumstance......
- American Smelting & Ref. Co. v. Indus. Comm'n
-
Martin v. Commissioner, Docket No. 4263-87.
... ... Lucas v. People, 75 Ill. App. 662 (1898) ... In Skolnik v. Commissioner Dec. 30,690, 55 T.C. 1055, 1062 (1971), in similarly considering whether an ... An essential element of the offense of false pretenses in Illinois is that the accused obtain money with the intent to defraud. People v. Scowley, 353 Ill. 330, 187 N.E. 415 (1933). However, the specific intent to defraud need not be proved by direct evidence, but may be proved by facts and ... ...