Craig v. Rohrer
| Decision Date | 31 January 1872 |
| Citation | 63 Ill. 325,1872 WL 11569 |
| Parties | WILLIAM T. CRAIG et al.v.ALBERT ROHRER. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Morgan county; the Hon. CHARLES D. HODGES, Judge, presiding.
This was an action in replevin for the recovery of certain cattle in the possession of Craig claimed by Rohrer. The case is voluminous, but all that was material is embodied in the facts furnished by the opinion, in which are repeated the erroneous instructions of the court below as to the effect of testimony brought by the appellants to contradict and discredit the evidence given by the appellee in his own behalf.
Messrs. MORRISON & WHITLOCK, for the appellants.
Mr. HENRY E. DUMMER, for the appellee. Mr. JUSTICE SHELDON delivered the opinion of the Court:
The giving of the following instruction to the jury in this case, is assigned as error:
“The court instructs for the plaintiff that, before the jury can allow any contradiction of the testimony of any of the witnesses to affect their credibility in this suit, the jury must be satisfied, from the evidence, that such contradiction is not only true but is upon a matter material to the issue in this case, and also that the testimony so contradicted was intentionally false.”
The instruction was clearly erroneous. A recognized mode of impeaching the credit of a witness is by proof that he has made statements out of court contrary to what he has testified at the trial. Such proof has a direct tendency to impeach either the veracity or the memory of the witness. There is no legal warrant requiring, as conditions to affect the credibility of the witness, that the testimony so contradicted should be material to the issue and intentionally false, as asserted by the instruction.
Testimony may affect the party against whom it is adduced whether it be true or false, and if false, whether it be so intentionally or unintentionally; and evidence of contradictory statements by the witness giving the testimony tends to affect his credibility, whatever be the character of the testimony so contradicted, in these respects.
It is true that a witness can not be contradicted as to matters purely collateral, but where contradictory statements, by a witness in a matter collateral, are suffered to be proved without objection, such evidence being in the case, tends, as we conceive, to affect the credibility of the witness, and may be so considered and weighed by the jury.
The evidence offered of contradictory...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Pfanschmidt
...78; 2 Wigmore on Evidence, c. 34; City of East Dubuque v. Burhyte, 173 Ill. 553, 50 N. E. 1077;Moore v. People, 108 Ill. 484;Craig v. Rohrer, 63 Ill. 325. Under these authorities it is clear that the question asked Geisel as to his feelings when he saw the horse and buggy tracks the morning......
-
Prickett v. Madison County.
...C. R. R. Co. v. Gougar, 55 Ill. 503; Jenks v. Burr, 56 Ill. 452; La Salle Co. v. Burr, 55 Ill. 452; Burt v. French, 70 Ill. 254; Craig v. Rohrer, 63 Ill. 325; McCoy v. People, 71 Ill. 113; Grimshaw v. Paul, 76 Ill. 166; 2 Starkie on Ev., 5th Am. ed., 22. It was error to exclude all the evid......
-
Teal v. Meravey
...588; Lamb v. Stewart, 2 Ohio, 230; Allen v. Harrison, 30 Vt. 219; Fort v. Hunkins, 98 Mass. 523; Presley v. Powers, 82 Ill. 125; Craig v. Rohrer, 63 Ill. 325; The People v. Williams, 18 Cal. 187; Mageham v. Thompson, 9 Watts & S. (Pa.) 54. As to instructions upon negligence: C. & N. W. R. R......
-
Taussig v. Schields
...v. Foye, 53 Mo. 336; The State v. Elkins, 63 Mo. 159; Howe Machine Co. v. Clark, 15 Kan. 492; Burdie v. Hunt, 43 Ind. 382, 389; Craig v. Roher, 63 Ill. 325; People v. Devine, 44 Cal. 452; Seller v. Jenkins, 97 Ind. 430, 435; Markell v. Moudy, 13 Neb. 323, 327; Morrison v. Meyers, 11 Ia. 553......