People v. Long
| Decision Date | 27 February 1883 |
| Citation | 50 Mich. 249,15 N.W. 105 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. LONG. |
When two witnesses are distinctly opposed to each other in their evidence regarding an important transaction, it is a mistake to assume that because the evidence is directly conflicting it will be impossible to get at the real facts, and in such case the court should allow the most searching cross-examination with a view to reaching the truth if possible.
If one relies upon the advice of legal counsel for protection against punishment for unlawful acts, he must show that he followed it.
In this case, as the respondent was not wronged by any ruling of the circuit judge or any instruction to the jury, the exceptions must be overruled.
Exceptions from Berrien.
J.J Van Riper, for the people.
George S. Clapp, for defendant.
The respondent was prosecuted for the larceny of a buggy, and convicted. The buggy had belonged to the respondent, and he had given a bill of sale of it to one Drake to secure the payment of a note of $50. The note and bill of sale were afterwards, and before the note fell due, sold by Drake to William J. Gilbert. It seems to have been assumed on the trial that the note was negotiable, though there was no direct evidence to that effect. The evidence tended to show that Gilbert took possession of the buggy under the bill of sale; that he paid a mechanic's lien of $18.50 at respondent's request, and that while holding possession the respondent without making payment secretly removed the buggy to an outbuilding about half a mile away.
The respondent took the stand on his own behalf, and testified that before Gilbert purchased he had arranged the Drake debt and satisfied it in a settlement of accounts. Drake was subsequently called as a witness and denied positively that any settlement of the note was included in their arrangement. Respondent's counsel attempted to go into the particulars of the settlement, but the court did not permit it.
When the two witnesses were thus distinctly opposed to each other in their evidence regarding an important transaction, the court should have permitted the most searching cross-examination, with a view to reaching the truth if possible. It is a mistake to assume that because the evidence is directly conflicting it will be impossible to get at the real facts. If, therefore, the question whether the note was or was not satisfied was vital in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial