People v. Strauch

Citation88 N.E. 155,240 Ill. 60
PartiesPEOPLE v. STRAUCH et al.
Decision Date23 April 1909
CourtSupreme Court of Illinois

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Error to Appellate Court, Second District, on Error to Circuit Court, Carroll County; Oscar E. Heard, Judge.

Andrew A. Strauch and another were convicted of conspiring to prevent competition in the letting of contracts for public improvements; and, from a judgment of the Appellate Court affirming such conviction, they bring error. Affirmed.O. M. Grove (E. E. Wingert, of counsel), for plaintiffs in error.

W. H. Stead, Atty. Gen., and Franklin J. Stransky, State's Atty., for the People.

VICKERS, J.

Andrew A. Strauch, Oswald Strauch, and Hubert E. Hughes were jointly indicted in the circuit court of Carroll county for unlawfully conspiring for the purpose of preventing competition in a public letting of contracts for the construction of certain bridges which were to be constructed partly at the expense of the county and partly at the expense of Fair Haven township. Hughes entered a plea of guilty, and a fine of $500 was assessed against him, which was paid. The other two defendants entered their plea of not guilty, and they were at the November term, 1907, of the circuit court of said county tried, found guilty by the verdict of the jury, and a fine of $500 was assessed against Andrew A. Strauch and a fine of $300 against Oswald Strauch. After overruling a motion for a new trial, judgment was entered upon the verdict. To reverse this judgment defendants removed the casue to the Appellate Court for the Second District by a writ of error, where the judgment below was in all particulars adjudged to be free from error and affirmed. A writ of error having issued for that purpose, this judgment is now brought into review in this court.

The facts, so far as the same are necessary to a decision of the questions involved, may be summarized as follows: Plaintiff in error Andrew A. Strauch and plaintiff in error Oswald Strauch are, respectively, father and son. Andrew A. Strauch, at the time of the occurrence of the circumstances out of which this prosecution grows and for a number of years prior thereto, had been a member of the board of supervisors of Carroll county, elected in the town of Fair Haven. Oswald Strauch, the son, and two of his brothers, had been attending school at the State University at Urbana, from which Oswald had about the middle of June, 1906, graduated as a mechanical engineer. Four bridges were to be constructed at public expense in the town of Fair Haven, two of which were to be steel bridges and the other two were to be made of concrete. It appears that the three sons of Andrew A. Strauch, in order to profitably occupy their time during the summer vacation, had under consideration the matter of bidding for the contracts to construct the bridges referred to. It also appears that their father was very anxious that his sons have employment duringtheir vacation, and to this end he aided them in securing the data upon which a bid for the bridge work might be predicated. On June 13, 1906, plaintiff in error Andrew A. Strauch presented to the chairman of the board of supervisors of said county a petition, signed by the commissioners of highways of Fair Haven township, asking for county aid in the building of the two steel bridges above referred to. At the time the petition was presented Andrew A. Strauch requested the chairman of the county board to appoint three supervisors, whose names were suggested by Strauch, as a committee to represent the county in connection with the commissioners of highways of Fair Haven township, with which joint board rested the decision of the question whether county aid would be granted for the construction of said bridges in accordance with the prayer of the petition. Two of the supervisors suggested by Strauch were appointed on said committee, and the other member, appointed at the suggestion of the chairman of the board, was unobjectionable to Strauch. This committee of supervisors met with the commissioners of highways of Fair Haven township, and decided to grant the prayer of the petition. The evidence shows that Andrew A. Strauch visited a number of bridge-building concerns for the purpose of procuring estimates upon the steel work, and that this information was sought with the view of enabling his sons to bid intelligently upon the contracts. On June 30, 1906, after legal notice, the commissioners of highways met with the committee of supervisors for the purpose of letting contracts for the construction of the bridges above referred to. The evidence shows that Andrew A. Strauch and his sons had numerous conferences regarding the matter of securing the work relating to the construction of these bridges. On the morning of the day the contracts were to be let Andrew A. Strauch ascertained that Hubert E. Hughes, the president of the Continental Bridge Company, was the only bidder present representing a bridge construction company. Andrew A. Strauch informed Joseph Warner, one of the members of the joint committee, that there was only one bridge man present to bid on the bridges, and Mr. Warner informed him that the contract would not be let unless there was more than one bid. Andrew A. Strauch was frequently seen in consultation with Hughes before the hour arrived for letting the contracts, in one of which Hughes testified that Strauch told him that his boys were intending to bid on the contract for the two steel bridges, and advised Hughes to ‘talk it over with the boys.’ Afterwards Andrew A. Strauch brought his son Oswald to Hughes, and introduced them, saying at the time to Hughes, ‘Here is one of my boys-here is one of my boys that has been figuring on the bridge work’; and said to his son Oswald, ‘Hughes is one of the men that came here on bridge matters.’ After this introduction the three men, Andrew A. Strauch, his son Oswald Strauch and Hughes, went to the private office of Andrew A. Strauch, in the village of Chadwick, and all three sat down at a table. Immediately upon going into the office Hughes and Oswald Strauch produced blueprints, specifications, and figures relating to the contracts for the two steel bridges in question. Andrew A. Strauch then withdrew to another room adjoining the office, saying to Oswald Strauch and Hughes as he departed: ‘Whatever you do, do not get me mixed up in any of your deals. You and Hughes figure it over, but do not mix my name in any of your deals.’ The evidence is practically uncontradicted that Oswald Strauch and Hughes entered into an agreement at that time by the terms of which Oswald Strauch was to put in a sham bid over and above the amount of the bid to be submitted by Hughes, and that Hughes was to pay Oswald Strauch $50 in cash and refrain from bidding on the concrete bridges, and also the Strauch boys to do the hauling of the material for the steel bridges. The evidence shows that, after this agreement was made, Hughes revised his figures and increased the bid from $1,985 to $2,035, being $50 more than he had originally intended to make, and that the bid put in by Oswald Strauch was $33 more than the revised figures of Hughes. The result was that the commissioners, having no knowledge of this unlawful agreement, awarded the contract for the construction of the steel bridges to the Continental Bridge Company upon the bid of Hughes, its president, and the concrete bridge contract was awarded to the Strauchs. Two days later Oswald Strauch appeared at the Chicago office of the Continental Bridge Company, and there signed a receipt which reads as follows: ‘$50.00. Chicago, Ill., July 2, 1906. Received of Continental Bridge Co. fifty and no/100 hundredths (50.00) on account of services at Chadwick, June 30th, '06. O. F. Strauch.’ At the time this receipt was signed a check for $50, signed by H. E. Hughes and drawn on A. W. Jefferis & Co., bankers, payable to the order of O. F. Strauch, was delivered and on the same day indorsed by O. F. Strauch and paid. It also appears from the evidence that, during the time Hughes and Oswald Strauch were negotiating in regard to the terms upon which Strauch would put in this sham bid, Oswald Strauch left the room and consulted frequently with his father in regard to the negotiations between himself and Hughes; that the amount of Hughes' bid was communicated to Andrew A. Strauch before the bid was put in, and he offered no opposition to the awarding of the contract to Hughes at the figures agreed upon by Hughes and Oswald Strauch. It was also agreed that the material for the steel bridges should be shipped to the order of Andrew A. Strauch, and in pursuance of this part of the agreement Hughes afterwards wrote a letter giving Andrew A. Strauch authority to receive the material from the railroad company, and Strauch acted as the agent of Hughes in procuring a drayman in the village of Chadwick to receive this material.

The foregoing statement contains a general outline of most important facts out of which this prosecution grows.

The indictment contains seven counts, all of which charge the defendants with the crime of conspiracy. The charging part of the fourth count avers that Hubert E. Hughes, Oswald Strauch, and Andrew A. Strauch ‘did unlawfully conspire and agree together with a fraudulent and malicious intent then and there wrongfully, wickedly, and unlawfully to prevent competition in the letting and awarding of a certain contract (a more particular description of said contract being to the grand jurors unknown) to be thereafter, on the 30th day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and six (A. D. 1906), let and awarded by the then and there authorities of the said county of Carroll and the then and there authorities of the said town of Fair Haven, in the said county of Carroll, aforesaid, said authorities of the said county of Carroll and said authorities of the said town of Fair Haven then and there being legally organized and then and there...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • Cochran v. Gritman
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • December 23, 1921
    ... ... an action against a surgeon for negligence, where it is ... claimed that plaintiffs' counsel referred to plaintiffs ... as being poor people, but upon objection withdrew the remark, ... and also said of the defendant that "he had got a part ... of his reputation in his hospital, and a ... credibility of the witnesses. ( Miller v. Nuckolls, ... supra ; People v. Strauch , 240 Ill. 60, ... 130 Am. St. 255, 88 N.E. 155; People v. Fielding , ... 158 N.Y. 542, 70 Am. St. 495, 53 N.E. 497, 46 L. R. A. 641, ... and ... ...
  • State v. La Fera
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • May 22, 1961
    ...v. Amster, 273 F. 532 (D.C.E.D.N.Y.1921); Morgan v. Gove, 206 Cal. 627, 275 P. 415, 62 A.L.R. 219 (Sup.Ct.1929); People v. Strauch, 240 Ill. 60, 88 N.E. 155 (Sup.Ct.1909); Atcheson v. Mallon, 43 N.Y. 147 (Ct.App.1870); City of Wichita Falls v. Skeen, 18 Tex.Civ.App. 632, 45 S.W. 1037 (Civ.A......
  • U.S. v. Galiffa
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • May 11, 1984
    ...have been adjudged guilty of conspiracy as a result of the aiding and abetting instruction given to the jury. Citing People v. Strauch, 240 Ill. 60, 88 N.E. 155 (1909), Galiffa contends that since the agreement is the essence of a conspiracy one can only aid and abet a conspiracy by facilit......
  • People v. Lloyd
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • October 5, 1922
    ...in furtherance of the common design. Ochs v. People, supra; Cooke v. People, 231 Ill. 9, 82 N. E. 863;People v. Strauch, 240 Ill. 60, 88 N. E. 155,130 Am. St. Rep. 255; 3 Greenleaf on Evidence, § 92; 2 Wharton on Crim. Evidence (10th Ed.) 1434; Roscoe on Crim. Evidence, 88. Therefore proof ......
  • 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