Craig v. Miller

Citations

• 133 Ill. 300
• 24 N.E. 431

Syllabus

<p>1. Witness—competency—wife for the husband. In an action against one of the makers of a note, who is a surety, the wife of the principal maker is not a competent witness for the defendant, for the reason that her husband is directly interested in the result of the suit.</p> <p>2. Same—former decision. The case of Gravel Road Oo. v. Madaus, 102 HI. 417, on this point is overruled.</p> <p>3. Instruction—giving undue prominence to 'evidence on one side. An instruction which recites the facts testified to by one party, almost in his language, and thus singles out those facts and gives them prominence over the testimony of the other party, and also gives prominence to an act of the latter, but ignores his evidence explaining the reason of his action, is erroneous.</p> <p>4. Same—accuracy required—evidence conflicting. In a case where the evidence is very evenly balanced, it is essential that the instructions, shall be accurate. '</p> <p>5. Practice—directing what the verdict shall be. In a suit upon art indorsed note by the assignee, the declaration had a special count on the note, and also the common counts, to which payment was pleaded. The evidence as to a settlement and payment was conflicting, and evenly balanced. The court instructed the jury to find for the plaintiff on the several claims made under the common counts, unless the defendant had proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they had been fully paid. There was no .pretense that the defendant was ever indebted to the plaintiff in any sum or on any account, except the note described in the first count, and the plaintiff testified that he had no other claim: Meld, that the instruction was erroneous, as under it the jury were bound to find for the plaintiff, even though they were satisfied of the payment of the note, and as being calculated to divert the attention of the jury from the merits, and confuse rather than enlighten them.</p>