Aholtz v. People

Citations

• 121 Ill. 560
• 13 N.E. 524
• 1887 Ill. LEXIS 955

Syllabus

<p>1. New trial—on the evidence. On the trial of one for the alleged forgery of the name of another to an injunction bond, the person whose name was signed to the bond, testified that he never signed the same, and never authorized the defendant or any one else to sign it for him. On cross-examination he was asked, if, at a certain time and place named, he did not state to a person named that he had given the defendant authority, “at one time,” to sign the bond. He answered that he never had any such conversation. The person to whom the statement was claimed to have been made was called, and testified that he did say he gave the defendant authority “at one time.” The defendant testified that to the best of his recollection the prosecuting witness, at a time and place named, said he could “use his name to the bond,” which was all the evidence on the point. The jury found the defendant guilty: Held, that the jury, who saw the witnesses and could judge of their credibility, having rejected and disbelieved the defendant’s testimony, this court could not reverse the judgment.</p> <p>2. It is the peculiar province of a jury to pass upon the credibility of witnesses where there is a conflict in the evidence, and the fact that the testimony of a witness interested in the result of the trial may be rejected or disbelieved by the jury, forms no ground to disturb the verdict and judgment.</p> <p>3. Same—on contradictory statement of witness after the trial. The mere statement of a witness, after a trial, in conflict with some portion of his testimony, is no sufficient ground for a new trial. If the witness should admit that his testimony was false, it would present a different question.</p>