Coughlin v. the People.

• Decision Date: 30 April 1857
• Citation: 1857 WL 5555,8 Peck 266,18 Ill. 266,68 Am.Dec. 541
• Parties: DENNIS COUGHLINv.THE PEOPLE.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

18 Ill. 266
1857 WL 5555 (Ill.)
68 Am.Dec. 541
8 Peck (IL) 266

DENNIS COUGHLIN
v.
THE PEOPLE.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April Term, 1857.

THE plaintiff in error was tried and convicted of an assault with a deadly weapon before the recorder's court of the city of Chicago, R. S. WILSON presiding. He sued out this writ of error upon the statement of the case, as disclosed by the opinion of the court.

B. S. MORRIS and T. HOYNE, for plaintiff in error.

W. BUSHNELL, state's attorney, for the people.

SKINNER, J.

This was an indictment against Coughlin for an assault with a deadly weapon on one Higgins. The evidence

[18 Ill. 267]

showed that the defendant, who was a police officer of Chicago, with others (for the alleged purpose of suppressing a riot), arrested one Harrison and had him in custody, when Higgins interfered on behalf of the prisoner; that while the officers were endeavoring to force Harrison through the crowd on their way to the prison, Higgins was knocked down with a club. Several witnesses, on the part of the people, testified that the defendant struck the blow, and several, on the part of the defendant, testified that they saw what passed, so far as the defendant was concerned, and that he did not strike the blow; and two testified that they saw another person strike it, and that the defendant did not.

One Powell, one of the witnesses for the defendant, having been sworn and his examination concluded, was, during the further progress of the trial, called, and failing to appear, an attachment issued against him and was returned “not found.” The court, on the part of the people, instructed the jury as follows: “If the jury believe, from the evidence, that Higgins, Meacham, Harrison, Hyde, Gaylord and Demary are truthful witnesses, and that they swear positively to the fact that the defendant struck Higgins, such positive evidence should receive more consideration than any negative evidence there may be in the case.”

“If the jury believe, from the evidence, that Powell, since he left the stand, has secreted himself, or kept out of the way of the officers to prevent being recalled as a witness in this case, such fact, if proved, should be considered in determining as to the credibility of Powell's statements.”

Although it is the duty of witnesses not to depart the court before the evidence is closed, unless discharged by the court, yet all conversant with judicial proceedings know they often do, without any improper motive, supposing their presence no...