People Ex Rel. Vosburgh v. Jameson

• Decision Date: 30 September 1867
• Citation: 40 Ill. 93,89 Am.Dec. 337,1867 WL 4940
• Parties: THE PEOPLE ex rel. VOSBURGHv.JOHN A. JAMESON, one of the Judges of the Superior Court of Chicago.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

40 Ill. 93

1867 WL 4940 (Ill.)

89 Am.Dec. 337

THE PEOPLE ex rel. VOSBURGH

v.JOHN A. JAMESON, one of the Judges of the Superior Court of Chicago.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1867.

THIS was an application to this court for a writ of man damus, in the name of the people, on the relation of John S. Vosburgh against John A. Jameson, one of the judges of the Superior Court of Chicago, to compel him to sign an amended bill of exceptions.

It appears that on the trial in the Superior Court of a cause wherein John S. Vosburgh was plaintiff and The Chicago and Great Eastern Railway Company was defendant, at which Judge JAMESON presided, among other witnesses Augustus Wallbaum was introduced and testified. The trial resulted adversely to the defendant, and, preparatory to bringing the case to this court for a review, a bill of exceptions was prepared purporting to embody the evidence given, which was signed and sealed by the judge. Subsequently, Vosburgh, being dissatisfied with the statement of the testimony of the witness Wallbaum, as presented in the original bill of exceptions, prepared an amended bill of exceptions, giving a different statement of the testimony of that witness, and presented the same to Judge JAMESON to be signed and sealed by him, which he refused to do. And thereupon, Vosburgh applied to this court for a writ of mandamus to compel the judge who tried the cause to sign the amended bill of exceptions.

The issuing of an alternative writ was waived, the following statement by Judge JAMESON being taken as a return, upon which the relator moved for a peremptory writ of mandamus.

This is the statement of Judge JAMESON:

“ To the Honorable the Judges of the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois:

I, John A. Jameson, to whom the annexed writ is directed, having declined to sign and seal the bill of exceptions copied into said writ, respectfully return said writ to your honorable court with the reasons that have governed my action.

The cause named in said writ is now pending in your honorable court, on appeal taken by the defendant below, and the record will show the bill of exceptions which I did sign and seal, and to it I refer for its contents.

When the bill of exceptions was presented to me by the defendant below, I understood it had been for a considerable time in the hands of the plaintiff's counsel, and there was no disagreement, except as to the statement of the last offer of proof to be made by the witness Wallbaum. The defendant's counsel insisted the statement in the bill of exceptions presented by them was accurate, while the plaintiff's counsel objected, and insisted it should be changed so as to make it substantially as in the attached writ.

I had no memoranda of the disputed matter, and no recollection about it that was at all satisfactory to my own mind.

I listened patiently and carefully to the statement made by the counsel of both parties, and was still uncertain as to what the fact was.

There had been a phonographic reporter present during the time the testimony was being taken (though different reporters were there at different times). I sent for Mr. S. W. Burnham, the reporter who was present at the time the disputed matter occurred; he appeared, bringing his original writing, made at the time by him, and I examined him fully as to the certainty of the signs used by him, the probability of a mistake in writing what occurred, and whether there could be any real difference in the reading by different persons; after being satisfied as to those matters, I heard the reporter read his original writing, myself reading the bill of exceptions as presented, and found the two to correspond exactly as to the disputed matter.

I have known Mr. Burnham as a reporter for nearly two years, he has frequently taken testimony in cases before me, and I had and have full confidence in his capacity as a reporter, and his integrity as a man.

After giving the matter the most careful consideration, I concluded the bill of exceptions as presented by the defendant was correct, and I therefore signed and sealed it, and of course refused to sign and seal the one copied into the attached writ when it was afterward presented to me. Attached hereto, and to be regarded as part of this return, will be found...