Dreyer v. People

Citation188 Ill. 40,59 N.E. 424
Decision Date19 October 1900
CourtSupreme Court of Illinois

Petition for rehearing and motion for leave to suggest a diminution of the record. Denied.

For former opinion, see 58 N. E. 620.


The judgment of this court has heretofore been entered in this cause affirming the judgment of the criminal court of Cook county against plaintiff in error, and he has filed a petition for a rehearing and a motion for leave to suggest a diminution of the record and to file an additional and amended bill of exceptions. The motion is accompanied by the additional and amended bill which it is proposed to file, which recites that plaintiff in error made application to the judge who tried the cause in the criminal court, and said judge, upon considering certain affidavits and a stenographer's notes of the testimony of one Henry C. McFall, all which affidavits and testimony were heard and considered on the motion for a new trial and were a part of the bill of exceptions and record in this court before this amendment, came to the conclusion that no oath was administered after February 21, 1900, to the bailiffs who had charge of the jury, and therefore said judge certifies to said fact. In passing upon this motion, it is not necessary to decide whether we might, in the exercise of a sound discretion and in furtherance of the ends of justice, permit a proper amendment of a record after the decision of a cause, and reopen such cause for further consideration upon the new record. In cases where a bill of exceptions may be amended after the term at which the judgment was rendered and after the bill has been settled and signed for the purpose of supplying an omission or correcting a mistake, the amendment must be based upon some official or quasi official note or memorandum or memorial paper remaining in the files of the case or upon the record of the court. A fact proposed to be made a part of the record by amendment of a bill of exceptions cannot rest in the recollection of the judge nor of any other person. It cannot be based upon ex parte affidavits or testimony after the event, and the only basis of the proposed amendment is of that kind. The affidavits and the testimony of McFall were presented to the trial court on the motion for a new trial, and purported to give the recollection of persons as to what occurred at the trial. They were not made or kept as a record of the event at the time it is alleged to have ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • Pinkstaff v. Pennsylvania R. Co., Gen. No. 47632
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 9, 1959
    ...counsel. Mayes v. People, 106 Ill. 306; Rock Island & P. R. Co. v. Kepple, 106 Ill.App. 303; Dreyer v. People, 188 Ill. 40, 58 N.E. 620, 59 N.E. 424, 58 L.R.A. 869. Upon the foregoing record, we hold that the court clearly indicated, in the course of the conference on settling the instructi......
  • People v. Touhy, s. 22789
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • October 2, 1935
    ...Such abuse is not presumed by a court of review. People v. Simos, 345 Ill. 266, 178 N.E. 188;Dreyer v. People, 188 Ill. 40, 58 N. E. 620,59 N. E. 424,58 L. R. A. 869. The affidavit does not show any abuse of discretion. An application for a change of venue from the trial judge was refused. ......
  • People v. Nall
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • December 8, 1909
    ...has been properly preserved on this record. Mayes v. People, 106 Ill. 306, 46 Am. Rep. 698;Dreyer v. People, 188 Ill. 40, 58 N. E. 620,59 N. E. 424,58 L. R. A. 869;Gallagher v. People, 211 Ill. 158, 71 N. E. 842. Even though the facts were properly preserved by bill of exceptions, plaintiff......
  • State v. Barnes
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • August 25, 1909
    ...S.Ct. 171, 35 L.Ed. 968; Thompson v. United States, 155 U.S. 271, 15 S.Ct. 73, 39 L.Ed. 146; Dreyer v. People, 188 Ill. 40, 58 N.E. 620, 59 N.E. 424, 58 L. R. A. 869; Penn v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 140, 35 S.W. 973; Anderson v. State, 86 Md. 479, 38 A. 937; State v. Crump, 5 Idaho, 166, 47 P......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT