People v. Matlock

• Decision Date: 21 June 1922
• Docket Number: No. 14437.,14437.
• Citation: 303 Ill. 399,135 N.E. 767
• Parties: PEOPLE v. MATLOCK.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

303 Ill. 399

135 N.E. 767

PEOPLE

v.MATLOCK.

No. 14437.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 21, 1922.

Error to Circuit Court, Jasper County; Franklin R. Dove, Judge.

Paris Matlook was convicted of perjury, and he brings error.

Affirmed.Davidson & Fithian, of Newton, for plaintiff in error.

Edward J. Brundage, Atty. Gen., William E. Isley, State's Atty., of Newton, and Floyd E. Britton, of Springfield, for the People.

DUNCAN, J.

At the October term, 1919, of the Jasper county circuit court, Paris Matlock was indicted by the grand jury for unlawfully obstructing a certain public highway in said county, and also for disorderly and boisterous conduct. He was convicted upon both charges, and fined by the county court; the indictment having been certified to the county court for trial. The indictment charged that he unlawfully and willfully obstructed and unnecessarily hindered Josiah Matlock and Prosper Matlock, while lawfully driving and traveling upon said highway, ‘by then and there in the nighttime of said day unlawfully and willfully and unnecessarily driving and stopping his automobile upon the left-hand side of said highway in front of the team and vehicle of the said Josiah Matlock, and by then and there unlawfully and maliciously standing in said highway and threatening the said Josiah Matlock with bodily injury unless he then and there turned to the left,’ ect.

The testimony disclosed that the public highway in question runs north and south. Near the point where the parties met the road formerly for a quarter of a mile curved to the east of the north and south section line, and in about 1916 the road authorities straightened the road at this point, and put it on the north and south line, and prepared the new or changed part of the road for travel. In October, 1919, at the time Paris and Josiah Matlock met on the road, both the old and the new parts of this road were traveled. The two parties met near the halfway distance between the points where the old road leaves or varies from the new road and returns to it, and the two roads at this halfway point are not very many feet apart. Paris at the time in question was traveling south on the old road, and gave as his reason that the new road had some stumps in it that made it bad traveling for his automobile. He had with him in his automobile a lady by the name of Frances Rife, who never appeared as a witness in either of the trials herein referred to. Josiah and his son, Prosper, were traveling north on the old roadbed at the time in question. Prosper was about 100 yards in advance of his father, and was walking, leading a cow, and his father was following in a wagon loaded with wood and drawn by two horses, and he had a third horse abreast of the other two horses. Paris had passed Prosper, according to the claim of the people, while driving his automobile on the east side of the highway, and continued south on the east side of the highway until about 60 feet north of Josiah, when he stopped his automobile on the east side of the highway, thereby leaving no sufficient room for Josiah to pass the automobile on the right-hand side (or east side) of the road as he traveled north. Josiah had also stopped his wagon and horses, and while Paris and he were thus standing in the road, about 60 feet apart, Prosper shouted to his father not to give the highway or all of the highway, and promptly after this shouting Paris began cursing Prosper and using vile language, and according to the claim of Prosper and his father, Paris also compelled Josiah to pull his team to the left and cross a ditch about 16 inches deep or more, on the west side of the roadbed, into the new highway already described, for want of sufficient room to pass the automobile on either side of the old road.

On the trial of the cause in the county court, Prosper and his father testified that Paris obstructed the passage of Josiah willfully, by simply stopping slightly on the east side of the old road, so as to prevent him from passing, otherwise than by crossing the ditch as aforesaid, and there were other witnesses who corroborated them in this evidence. Paris, on the other hand, testified positively in the county court that he stopped his automobile 60 feet north of Josiah and his team, and on the west side of the road, and as far west as he could get his machine, leaving plenty of room for Josiah to pass him on the east, and that Josiah did pass him on the east and continued north on the old road. He admitted cursing and abusing Prosper, after Prosper had shouted to his father not to give any of the road, but also testified that he told Josiah to come on, that there was plenty of room for him to pass on the east, and that Josiah did pass him on the east side. The sole issue or question in that case on the facts was as to whether or not Paris stopped his machine on the west side of the road, and allowed Josiah to pass him on the east, as he testified, or whether or not he stopped it just to the east edge of it, so as to block the passage of the wagon, and force Josiah to cross the ditch into the new road.

After the trial in the county court was over, and at the April term, 1920, of the circuit court of said county, the grand jury returned an indictment for perjury against Paris Matlock, consisting of two counts. This indictment was based on the alleged false testimony of Paris in the trial of the case in the county court. The charge in both counts of the indictment in substantially the same, and after the usual averments in such indictments both counts make the direct charge, in substance, that Paris Matlock in the cause in the county court ‘did depose and swear * * * that he, the said Paris Matlock, did not obstruct the said Josiah Matlock upon said public highway, but did seasonably and properly turn to the right far enough to permit the said Josiah to pass his (the said Paris Matlock's) automobile on his (the said Paris Matlock's) left, unobstructed and that he, the said Josiah Matlock, did then and there so pass with his team and wagon at the time and place alleged in the indictment.’ On the trial before a jury the plaintiff in error (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) was found guilty, and judgment and sentence were entered against him by the circuit court that he serve an indeterminate term in the penitentiary, and he has sued out this writ of error to review the judgment of the circuit court.

The issues of fact in the circuit court were plain and simple, and were the following: (1) Did the defendant swear on the trial in the county court that he did seasonably and properly turn to the right far enough to permit Josiah Matlock to pass his automobile at the time in question unobstructed, and that Josiah did then and there so pass with his team and wagon on the defendant's left, or did he swear to those facts in substance? (2) Did he swear to those facts willfully and corruptly, knowing at the same time that he was testifying falsely and corruptly, and with intent to secure a verdict of not guilty that he was not justly and legally entitled to have?

There is no question made by the defendant that he did not testify to the foregoing state of facts in the county court. His only claim is that the facts to which he testified are true, and that for that reason he is not guilty of the charge of perjury. He testified to the same state of facts in the circuit court and which are above set forth, and in substantially the same manner as he did in the county court, as we have already set forth. The only real issue, therefore, in this case, is whether or not his testimony aforesaid was true or false; for, if his testimony was untrue, it is morally certain that he positively knew that he was testifying falsely and corruptly when he gave such testimony. Prosper and Josiah Malock testified in the circuit court as to what occurred at the time they met the defendant on the road, to the same effect as we have already indicated that they testified to in the county court, and their testimony as to the foregoing issues is diametrically contrary to the testimony of the defendant. It will serve no useful purpose to detail the evidence of these three witnesses, any further than we have. It is proper to state that the defendant is a cousin of Prosper and a nephew of Josiah, and all three of their families are not on very friendly terms, and do not associate or visit with each other.

The questions of fact in this case having been settled by the lower court and the jury, there is absolutely no reason for this court, so far as the record shows, to set aside the verdict and judgment in this case on the evidence after a careful and critical consideration of the testimony of the three Matlocks.

There is a further reason why this court should not interfere with the verdict and judgment in the case upon the consideration of the evidence alone. Prosper and Josiah Matlock were corroborated by the mother of Prosper and also by other witnesses. Mrs. Matlock, testified in substance, that she visited the place where the defendant stopped his machine when he met the two...