Court Opinion

ID: 9713803
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:22:42.608649+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:20.591430
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Schaefer, dissenting: The indictment in this case contains four counts. Two of them charge that the defendant was the agent of Dorothy Tarrant, doing business as Cooper’s Jewelry, and two of them charged that he was her servant. It is not contended in this court that the relation of master and servant existed between the complaining witness and the defendant. The critical question is whether the defendant was the agent of the complaining witness. Upon the record it seems to me that he was not. He maintained his own office, had his own employees, and collected accounts for approximately 500 other individuals and firms. He was subject to no control whatsoever by any of his customers in making his collections. His customers knew that he kept all of his collections in a single account. That the defendant was not an agent would be clear, I think, if vicarious liability was sought to be asserted against Dorothy Tarrant on account of the defendant’s conduct in the course of his collection activities. The conclusion of the majority that the defendant was an agent rests upon the assertion that “[t]he term ‘agent’ as used in embezzlement statutes is construed in its popular sense * * That generalization runs counter to the basic rule that criminal statutes are strictly construed. More important than generalized statements as to the proper approach to the problem of construction, however, is the language to be construed. The statute under which the defendant was indicted (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1953, chap. 38, par. 210,) refers to “any clerk, agent, servant, solicitor, broker, apprentice or officer.” If “agent” has the broad meaning which the majority gives it, each of the other terms is superfluous because all are embraced within the single term “agent.” Many of the specific enumerations in the other statutes referred to by the majority likewise become largely, if not entirely, meaningless, for the particular relationships they seek to reach are also swallowed up in the expanded definition of the term “agent.” It is arguable of course that the conduct of the defendant in this case should be regarded as criminal. The General Assembly might wish to make it so. But it might not. It might regard the collection agency as a desirable service enterprise which should not be made unduly perilous. If the defendant in this case, with his little agency, is guilty of one embezzlement, he is guilty of 500. The General Assembly might not want to make the enterprise so hazardous. It has not done so, in my opinion, by the statute before us. Maxwell and Klingbiel, JJ., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion.