Pierce v. People of State
| Decision Date | 31 January 1876 |
| Citation | 1876 WL 9924,81 Ill. 98 |
| Parties | DANIEL PIERCEv.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of St. Clair county; the Hon. WILLIAM H. SNYDER, Judge, presiding.
Messrs. KŒRNER & TURNER, for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. CHARLES P. KNISPEL, State's Attorney, for the People. Mr. JUSTICE SCHOLFIELD delivered the opinion of the Court:
The defendant was indicted and, on trial, convicted, and sentenced to the penitentiary for the term of one year, for obtaining property of one Phillips, “““by the confidence game.”
Phillips was the proprietor of a hotel in East St. Louis, and on the 4th of August, 1875, the defendant became a guest of his--informing his clerk that he wanted a room for a few days, and other accommodations,--that he wanted his meals at the restaurant, so that he could take what he wanted and pay for it. He represented himself as being of the firm of D. Pierce & Sons, who were merchants doing business on Broadway and Fifth streets, in St. Louis, Mo., and had letter heads and cards with him showing the firm name and place of business; and the hotel clerk swears that, on this representation, and from having seen the letter heads and cards, and observing that he had to write letters once in a while, he gave him one of the best rooms in the house. After the defendant had remained at the hotel some days, the defendant showed the hotel clerk what the latter understood to be a draft on Taylor & Sons, of Newport, Kentucky, for $4000, and informed him that he had funds in the hands of Taylor & Sons, which he had ordered them to forward to St. Louis, and that the draft shown was for the funds. But the clerk says, what was shown him as a draft afterwards turned out to be but a copy of a draft. The defendant remained at the hotel, getting his meals, drinks, etc., and a small amount of money from the clerk, to pay the barber for shaving him, and a boy to go to the post office for his letters, until his bill amounted to some $18, when the clerk demanded payment. The defendant gave his promissory note for $25, payable at the “Bank of St. Louis, Mo., one day after date,” saying that he wanted to stay there a few days longer, and would make the note large enough to cover the additional charges. He also observed to the clerk, at the time, that he could give him the note, payable at other banks, but that he had a draft on Sherman & Co. of New York, who had failed, and he did not know whether it would be met, and that he had funds at the bank at which he made the note payable. The note was disposed of by the proprietor of the hotel, in St. Louis, for goods; but was finally returned protested. The defendant had, meanwhile, remained at the hotel, and when notified of the protest of his note, remarked ““that it was strange,” and that “there ought to be money there in the bank.” He then gave an order on another bank for $50, upon which nothing was received; and upon this failing, he gave an order on his son William for $54.15, which included his account and the costs of protesting his paper. This was carried to the place indicated as the business place of the defendant's firm, of which his son was represented to be a member, and it was found that it was closed, and that his son was gone and could not be found. The defendant then gave the proprietor of the hotel an order on the Yeager Milling Company for seven barrels of flour, which was not honored, and after this he was arrested.
There was a firm of D. Pierce & Sons, who had been doing business on Broadway and Fifth streets, in St. Louis, Mo., at the place indicated by the defendant, as commission merchants; and there is no reason to doubt but that the defendant was the senior member of that firm. When it ceased to do business does not appear, any further than that it was closed when the draft was taken there which had been drawn by the defendant on his son William. The firm had, also, had transactions with the Yeager Milling Company, but that company gave as a reason for refusing to honor the draft for the seven barrels of flour, that D. Pierce & Sons owed them $350, and they had taken...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Allen
...a way as to gain the confidence of the victim, and throw him off his guard, and 'together constituted the swindling operation.' In Pierce v. People, 81 Ill. 98, in considering the legislative act on the subject, which is identical with ours, it is held that obtaining credit by false represe......
-
Ryan v. Rogers
... ... insufficient to justify the arrest, citing the following: ... State ex rel. v. Richardson, 24 N.W. 354; Ex parte ... Powell, 20 Fla. 806; Ex parte Hart, 63 F. 249; ... Cas. No. 12,968; Ex parte Morgan, 20 F. 298; 8 ... Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 1068; Pierce v. People, 81 Ill ... 98; People ex rel. v. Byrnes et al., 33 Hun, 98; ... Barnes v. Nelson, ... ...
-
People v. Gallowich
...cause of the loss of the thing of value; must be the moving cause, and not the cause of the cause; must be the proximate cause. Pierce v. People, 81 Ill. 98;Commonwealth v. Drew, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 184. To sustain a prosecution for obtaining goods under false pretenses, it must, in legal effe......
-
People v. Walker
...192 N.E.2d 833 ... 28 Ill.2d 393 ... The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, ... James R. WALKER, Plaintiff in Error ... No. 36103 ... Supreme Court of Illinois ... Sept. 27, 1963 ... (Pierce v. People, 81 Ill. 98; People v. Burley, 357 Ill. 584, 192 N.E. 689; People v. Chronister, 379 Ill. 617, 41 N.E.2d 750.) The cases cited by the ... ...