Wallahan v. the People.
| Decision Date | 30 September 1867 |
| Citation | 1867 WL 4942,40 Ill. 103 |
| Parties | WALLAHAN et al.v.THE PEOPLE. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Thereupon, Mr. R. E. WILLIAMS and Mr. T. M. SHAW, for the appellants, moved the court to strike such additional transcript from the files, insisting the same is not legally and properly any part of the record in this cause, the bill of exceptions therein certified being signed and filed two years and four months after the trial of the cause.
The counsel urged that the practice would endanger the rights of parties, to permit bills of exceptions to be amended after such a lapse of time, by incorporating other matters of evidence than those contained in the original bill of exceptions, when there is nothing to amend by -- the testimony resting alone in the memory of the judge below, or of counsel. Per CURIAM:
An amendment of a bill of exceptions, incorporating evidence alleged to have been omitted from the original bill of exceptions, should not be allowed at a term subsequent to that at which the trial was had, unless there is something in the court below to amend by. But where the court below has made the amendment, in the absence of any exception to the source of information upon which the court acted, we must presume there was something to amend by -- some note or memorandum of the evidence, sufficient to enable the court to make the proper amendment.
Had the party objecting to this amendment, shown to us by bill of exceptions, that there was nothing in the court below, or no sufficient means of information, by which the amendment could properly be made, we should regard this motion very differently. But as there is nothing before us showing such a state of case, the presumption must be indulged that the court below did not act without sufficient memoranda upon his docket or on file in the cause of what the testimony was, and by which the amendment might be made.
Motion overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Rosenwald
...record showing that it was signed on a different date without authority, this court would presume he had authority to so sign. Wallahan v. People, 40 Ill. 103;Village of Hyde Park v. Dunham, 85 Ill. 569; Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. Walsh, supra; Nagel v. People, 229 Ill. 59......
-
The Fame Ins. Co. v. Mann
...to amend a bill of exceptions: Bergen v. Riggs, 40 Ill. 61; Steele v. The People, 40 Ill. 59; Brooks v. Bruyn, 40 Ill. 64; Wallahan v. The People, 40 Ill. 102; McCormick v. Wheeler, 36 Ill. 114; 9 Chicago Legal News, 334; Tidd's Pr. 714; Rev. Stat. Chap. 7, § 4. Points in writing need not b......
-
Nagel v. People
...relative to these facts having been filed, the presumption must be indulged that the action of the lower court was correct. Wallahan v. People, 40 Ill. 103;Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. Walsh, 150 Ill. 607, 37 N. E. 1001. In this same connection it is also insisted that the l......
-
People v. Nowak
... ... People v. Keller, 353 Ill. 411, 187 N.E. 460;Hake v. Strubel, 121 Ill. 321, 12 N.E. 676;Richter v. Chicago & Erie Railroad Co., 273 Ill. 625, 113 N.E. 153.Plaintiff in error calls our attention to Wallahan v. People, 40 Ill. 103. This case is not authority for the contention of plaintiff in error because there was nothing in the record to show the lack of jurisdiction of the court to allow an amendment to the bill of exceptions already properly certified, as under such conditions it is presumed the ... ...