Wright v. People

Citations

• 61 Ill. 382

Syllabus

<p>1. Commission merchant—demand by consignor—construction of act of 1869. Tlie act of March 4,1869, entitled an act for the protection of consignors of fruit, grain, flour, etc., to be sold on commission, which provides that any warehouseman, storage, forwarding or commission merchant who, having converted to his own use the proceeds or profits arising from the sale of any goods otherwise than as instructed by the consignor of the goods, on demand of the consignor fails to deliver over the proceeds or profits of such goods after deducting the usual per cent oil sales as commissions, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, etc., being a penal statute, must receive a strict construction, and an actual demand to be made by the consignor upon the commission merchant is an indispensable pre-requisite to a conviction under it.</p> <p>2. Same—sufficiency of demand. In such a prosecution the complaining witness testified that, when he went to the place of the accused, the latter said : “I know what you have come for, but it is impossible for me to pay you'anything now.” The witness stated that the accused knew well enough what he had come for, and this was all the demand he claimed to have been made: Rdd, that, while in a civil cause where a demand was necessary, such evidence might be sufficient for a jury to find a waiver, yet, in this action, it- was insufficient. The demand should be made in such a manner as to fairly apprise the merchant that he would be subject to the penalties of the statute if he failed to comply.</p>