People v. Siegal

Decision Date19 February 1936
Docket NumberNo. 22828.,22828.
Citation362 Ill. 389,200 N.E. 72
PartiesPEOPLE v. SIEGAL et al.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Donald S. McKinlay, Judge.

Allan Siegal and others were convicted of kidnapping for ransom, and they bring error.

Affirmed.

SHAW, J., dissenting.

Darrow, Smith, Cronson & Smith, of Chicago (William W. Smith and Edward M. Keating, both of Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiffs in error Allan Siegal and Arthur Sway.

Wm. Scott Stewart, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error Rudolph Pisani.

Otto Kerner, Atty. Gen., Thomas J. Courtney, State's Atty., of Chicago, and J. J. Neiger, of Springfield (Edward E. Wilson, Henry E. Seyfarth, and John T. Gallagher, all of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

JONES, Justice.

The defendants, Allan Siegal, Arthur Sway, and Rudolph Pisani, were convicted in the criminal court of Cook county of kidnapping Harry Welch for ransom, and their imprisonment was fixed at twenty-five years in the penitentiary. They have sued out this writ of error to review the judgment.

Welch lived in Toledo, Ohio, and was in the clothing business. He had previously had some transactions with Siegal. In the spring of 1934, Siegal, through letters and telegrams, represented to Welch that he had on hand a supply of clothing for sale and urged Welch to come to Chicago to purchase it. On June 13 Welch came to Chicago pursuant to the request of Siegal and registered at the Morrison Hotel. Siegal called for him the next day, and immediately after breakfast they went out to the West Side, in Chicago, where Siegal said he could show the merchandise to Welch. They drove to a building and entered a dark basement under a saloon. The basement was the home of a colored man and woman, who had been hired to vacate it for the time being. Sway and Pisani were concealed in the room. Both were armed. One of them had a machine gun. There was no clothing for sale in the premises. Welch was compelled to empty his pockets and take off his clothing. He was bound, gagged, subjected to vile epithets, roughly handled, and burned on the head and cheek with the metallic part of a hammer, which had been heated. Two thousand dollars was demanded of him. He said he could not raise that much money but would pay $500, and that he could get another $500 in Chicago. His counter proposition was not accepted, and he was further tortured until he agreed to talk with his folks at home in an effort to obtain the sum demanded. He was taken upstairs into the saloon, the doors of which were closed. There was a telephone, and he called his family at Toledo and informed them that he was in need of $2,000 immediately and requested them to wire it to the defendant Allan Siegal, who had previously given him a card upon which was written a description of Siegal and the place where the money should be sent. This card was as follows: Allan Siegal-red hair-brown suit. 644 Diversey boulevard, apartment 219, Chicago, Illinois,’ One of the persons at Toledo who talked with Welch over the phone was his brother-in-law, Edward Rosenberg. He agreed to wire the money at once. After this conversation the defendants put Welch in an automobile and drove a number of blocks and through an alley to a garage located on the lot where Pisani's parents resided. It appears that the men went to a drug store, where they again called Toledo, after which they returned to the garage. Siegal and Sway then departed for 644 Diversey boulevard so as to be there when the telegraphic money order arrived. Welch was left in the garage in charge of Pisani, who was armed. Instead of sending the money as he had promised, Rosenberg called his attorney by phone in Toledo, who in turn called a lawyer in Chicago and related the circumstances to him. This attorney called the police department. Officers immediately went to the address Siegal had given and arrested him and Sway. In the meantime, Welch, who was confined in the garage, expressed a desire for some coffee. Pisani took him to a restaurant, where coffee was procured. They returned immediately to the garage to await the arrival of Siegal and Sway. After the lapse of considerable time, Welch again expressed a desire for something to eat. Pisani took him to a large Thompson restaurant, where they sat at a table. The restaurant was conducted on a self-service plan. Welch went to the serving counter and ordered a piece of pie from a girl attendant. While she was serving it to him he said in a low tone: ‘Please call the police. I am being kidnapped.’ The girl thought he was joking and did not comply with his request. A little later he again came to the counter to order a cup of coffee. The attendant said she noticed he was nervous and his hands were trembling. He again asked her to call the police, and told her if she did not do it he was going to break away and run. Seeing he was in distress she spoke to the manager, and the traffic officer at the corner was called in. He did not know for what purpose he was called, but as he entered Pisani saw him, arose, and left the building. He was not located and arrested for nearly a week. Welch told the policeman what had happened, and he (Welch) was taken to the police station, where he made a full statement of all the occurrences.

Welch was lured and inveigled into coming from Toledo to Chicago where the defendants took forcible and unlawful custody of him. They assaulted and burned him in an attempt to extort money from him. None of these facts are denied. However, it is said that such facts do not constitute the crime of kidnapping but constitute the crime of an attempt to extort money and they should have been prosecuted under ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • State v. Murphy
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • December 15, 1971
    ... ... Kent v. Commonwealth, 165 Va ... 840, 183 S.E. 177 (1936); People v. Siegal, 362 Ill. 389, 200 N.E. 72 (1935); People v. DeLeon, 109 N.Y. 226, 16 N.E. 46 (1888); United States v. McGrady (C.A. 7, 1951), 191 F.2d ... ...
  • People v. Meisenhelter
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • January 13, 1943
    ...the key witness upon whose testimony the People relied for a conviction, was not a codefendant in the instant case. In People v. Siegal, 362 Ill. 389, 200 N.E. 72, 74, this court said: ‘Where two or more persons have been indicted jointly and one of them has made a confession, a severance w......
  • People v. Sykes
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • September 22, 1987
    ...People v. Bishop (1953), 1 Ill.2d 60, 114 N.E.2d 566, cert. denied, 346 U.S. 916, 74 S.Ct. 278, 98 L.Ed. 412 (car); People v. Siegal (1935), 362 Ill. 389, 200 N.E. 72 (basement, car and garage); People v. Landis (1st Dist.1966), 66 Ill.App.2d 458, 214 N.E.2d 343 In the instant case, the vic......
  • Watkins v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1983
    ...and cf. People v. DeLeon, 109 N.Y. 226, 16 N.E. 46 (1888); Kent v. Commonwealth, 165 Va. 840, 183 S.E. 177 (1936); People v. Siegal, 362 Ill. 389, 200 N.E. 72 (1935); State v. Walker, 139 Mont. 276, 362 P.2d 548 (1961). See also Anno., Kidnapping By Fraud Or False Pretenses, 95 A.L.R.2d 450......
  • 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