Allison v. People of State

• Citation: 45 Ill. 37,1867 WL 5215
• Parties: SAMUEL ALLISONv.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.
• Decision Date: 30 September 1867
• Court: Supreme Court of Illinois

45 Ill. 37

1867 WL 5215 (Ill.)

SAMUEL ALLISON

v.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1867.

WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Woodford county; the Hon. SAMUEL L. RICHMOND, Judge, presiding.

This was a prosecution for bastardy. A trial was had by a jury, who found that the defendant, Samuel Allison, was the father of the child. A motion for a new trial was made, and overruled. The defendant brought the case to this court by writ of error.

The facts appear in the opinion.

Mr. ROBERT G. INGERSOLL and Mr. S. D. PUTERBAUGH, for the plaintiff in error.

Messrs. CLARK & CHRISTIAN, for the defendants in error.

Mr. JUSTICE WALKER delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was a prosecution for bastardy. The cause was tried below, before the court and a jury, and resulted in a verdict of guilty against plaintiff in error. The court thereupon rendered a judgment on the verdict, after overruling a motion for a new trial. The cause is brought to this court, and the refusal of the court below to grant a new trial, is urged as a ground of reversal. It is first insisted that the evidence was insufficient to warrant the finding of the jury. It appears that the evidence of the prosecuting witness is clear and positive that plaintiff in error is the father of the child, and there is no pretense that it is not a bastard. It is, however, insisted that the prosecuting witness was shown to be unworthy of belief, and that she was contradicted by credible testimony, and that the verdict is so clearly unsupported by the evidence that the judgment should be reversed.

It has been repeatedly held by this court, that, while this proceeding is, in form, criminal, it is, in effect, civil in its nature; and, being so, like a civil case, a preponderance of evidence is only required to sustain a verdict finding defendant to be the father of the child; that it does not require that every reasonable doubt should be excluded by the evidence to warrant a conviction. Mann v. The People, 35 Ill. 467; Maloney v. The People, 38 Id. 62. It then follows that a preponderance of evidence is sufficient, and if there is such evidence in this case, the judgment of the court below should not be reversed for the want of evidence.

To overcome her evidence, plaintiff in error introduced evidence that tended to show that coition could not have taken place on the day fixed by the prosecuting witness. And she having stated that she had illicit intercourse with no other man than plaintiff in error, between the first of October, 1865, and the birth of the child, he introduced evidence tending to show that she might have had such intercourse with one McClure, in January, 1866, to whom she testified she was engaged to be married. We are not prepared to say that the jury would not have been warranted in saying that she was successfully impeached. But they having given credence to her evidence, we cannot say that they did wrong. It was for them, on seeing the witnesses and hearing them testify, to say which were entitled to credit. They have found in favor of the credibility of the prosecuting witness, and we are...