Stoker v. People
| Decision Date | 13 June 1885 |
| Citation | 114 Ill. 320,2 N.E. 55 |
| Parties | STOKER v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Jackson.
Allen & Harben, for appellant.
McElvain & Martin, for appellees.
This was an indictment against Edward P. Stoker in the circuit court of Jackson county for larceny, under section 74, c. 38, Rev. St. 1874, which declares: ‘Whoever embezzles or fraudulently converts to his own use, or secretes with intent to embezzle, or fraudulently to convert to his own use, money, goods, or property delivered to him which may be the subject of larceny, or any part thereof, shall be deemed guilty of larceny.’ On a trial before a jury the defendant was found guilty, and his term of imprisonment was fixed at one year in the penitentiary.
The facts relied upon to sustain the conviction may be stated in a few words: In 1882 the defendant, Stoker, was a constable in Jackson county. Aultmore, Miller & Co. obtained judgments against William Spence, Jr., upon which executions were issued and placed in the hands of the defendant as constable for collection. In the month of September of that year the defendant collected on the executions $211.50, for which he gave his receipt as constable. The money collected the defendant failed to pay over.
Several questions have been discussed in the argument, but the principal point in the case is whether, under the facts, the defendant was liable to be indicted and convicted under the section 74 of the Criminal Code heretofore set out. It will be observed that a constable is not mentioned in the section of the statute. It will also be found, upon an examination of section 79 of the same chapter of the statute, that said section in express terms includes constables. It is as follows: ‘If any attorney at law, justice of the peace, constable, * * * or other person authorized by law to collect money, shall fail or refuse to pay over any money collected by him, less his proper charges, on demand by the person entitled to receive the same, or his agent duly authorized, he shall be fined,’ etc. There can be no doubt in regard to the fact that the defendant was liable to be prosecuted and convicted under this section of the statute. He was a constable, and in his official capacity as such he collected money and failed to pay it over. His case falls directly within the terms of this section of the statute. It is true that the word ‘whoever,’ used in section 74, has a broad or comprehensive meaning; but at the same...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. McClory v. Donovan
... ... provisions of the statute which might include such class in ... the absence of such special provisions. Stokes v ... People, 114 Ill. 320; State v. Cornell, 74 N.W ... 432; Felt v. Felt, 19 Wis. 208; Richardson ... County v. Miles, 16 N.W. 150; Crane v. Reider, ... 22 ... ...
-
People v. Schnepp
... ... Section 74 provides that whoever embezzles or fraudulently converts to his own use money, goods, or property delivered to him which may be the subject of larceny shall be deemed guilty of larceny. To sustain his contention, defendant relies upon Stoker v. People, 114 Ill. 320, 2 N.E. 55. Stoker was a constable and collected money under an execution upon a judgment, which he failed to turn over on demand. We held that money collected by a constable was not delivered to him within the meaning of section 74, and that his offense did not fall within ... ...
-
Conley v. State
... ... AFFIRMED ... J. L ... McPheely, Hall, St. Clair & Roberts, and F. G. Hamer, for ... plaintiff in error, cited: People v. Allen, 5 Den. [N ... Y.], 76; Stoker v. People, 114 Ill. 320; ... State v. Denton, 22 A. [Md.], 305; Doyle v ... Alderman of Raleigh, 45 Am ... ...
-
People v. Gordon
...can properly and should properly be charged.' People v. Rhodes (1967), 38 Ill.2d 389, 396, 231 N.E.2d 400, 403.) Both Stoker v. People (1885), 114 Ill. 320, 2 N.E. 55 and Gunning v. People (1899), 86 Ill.App. 174, relied upon by defendant, are distinguishable from the case at bar. In Stoker......