People v. Shapiro

• Decision Date: 29 March 1939
• Docket Number: Gen. No. 40295.
• Citation: 20 N.E.2d 107,299 Ill.App. 255
• Parties: PEOPLE v. SHAPIRO.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

299 Ill.App. 255

20 N.E.2d 107

PEOPLE

v.SHAPIRO.

Gen. No. 40295.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division.

March 29, 1939.

Error to Municipal Court of Chicago; Cecil Corbett Smith, Judge.

Martin Shapiro was found guilty of attempting to obtain money by false pretenses, of doing overt acts in furtherance thereof, and having failed and been intercepted in such attempt, and he brings error.

Reversed. Grenville Beardsley, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

Thomas J. Courtney, Edward E. Wilson, John T. Gallagher, Melvin S. Rembe, and Blair L. Varnes, all of Chicago, for the People.

DENIS E. SULLIVAN, Presiding Justice.

This cause comes before us on a writ of error from the Municipal Court wherein the defendant was found guilty of attempting by false pretenses to obtain $200 from Riverview Park Company, of doing overt acts in furtherance thereof and having failed and been intercepted in such attempt.

Motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were overruled and the defendant Martin Shapiro was sentenced to jail for six months.

The theory of the case on behalf of The People is that defendant falsely, fraudulently and designedly represented to officers of Riverview Park Company that the claim for damages for personal injuries of one Sylvester Bialkowski was false and fraudulent, in that Bialkowski pretended to suffer from an injured spine, but had only been shaken up and bruised in an accident and to make it appear his injuries were serious had been taken to a hospital and placed in a plaster cast, that in reliance upon these representations the officers of the Park gave $200 to the defendant, who put the money in his pocket and started to leave the office of the company; that he was arrested as he left the office, and the said money taken from him.

Defendant's theory is that when, in reliance upon his representations, officers of Riverview Park Company handed $200 to him and he placed the money in his pocket and walked away, defendant was guilty of either obtaining money by false pretenses or of no offense, depending upon the truth or falsity of his representations; that the vital element of failure, interception and prevention was not proven and is completely disproved by the evidence; that his trial was unfair, the record disclosing that he was prejudiced in his substantial rights by unfair questions and statements of the Assistant State's Attorney who prosecuted the case, and by erroneous rulings of the trial judge.

As to the evidence presented, there does not seem to be much difference between the position taken by the State and the defendant. Plaintiff's brief states that three police officers arrived at the Riverview Park Co. offices prior to 2:30 P. M. on January 11, 1938, Sergeant Hannigan stayed in Mr. Botts' office; that Mr. Botts is controller of the company; that the other officers went into the next office where there was a thin partition between; that defendant came to Botts' office at about 2:45 P. M. and Eckert introduced him to Botts and Hannigan and told them what the defendant had proposed; that defendant said he had talked to Eckert about the $75,000 case by Bialkowski and that he had some information that might be of value; that defendant said he wanted $200, that it was worth more, but that he would leave it up to them. Botts told him he didn't know whether they wanted to give him anything for the information because his story might not be true. Defendant said, “I will take a chance on telling you the story”. Defendant then related how, the morning after the accident at Riverview Park, he took a list of those alleged to have been injured; that he...