Cronk v. People

Citations

• 131 Ill. 56
• 22 N.E. 862
• 1889 Ill. LEXIS 1139

Syllabus

<p>1. Pebjuby—materiality. In replevin for a lot of books, the plaintiff read in evidence a bill of sale from the defendant to him of the books, after which the defendant proved by a witness that the signature to the-bill of sale was not in the handwriting of the defendant, and thereupon the plaintiff had the defendant sworn, and called him as a witness, and asked him whether the signature to the bill of sale was his, and he-answered, “No:” Held, that the defendant was liable to an indictmehtfor perjury if his testimony was false, it being material in the case.</p> <p>2. Same—upon what issues the false testimony may be given. A party-may waive any pleading upon which he might insist as a condition precedent to the introduction of evidence by the other party; and when the other party shall give such evidence of a fact not made an issue by the pleadings, the former can not afterward deny its materiality.</p> <p>3. Pleading and evidence—non est factum in replevin. Where the-plaintiff in an action of replevin introduces in evidence a bill of sale purporting to be made to him by the defendant, an affidavit denying its execution is not required before the defendant may introduce evidence that he did not execute the same. The plea of non est factum is-unknown in replevin.</p> <p>4. New tbial—verdict against the evidence—in criminal cases. As-the jury in a criminal casé are regarded by the law as peculiarly qualified to pass upon the question of guilt or innocence, it is violative of both the letter and the spirit of the Criminal Code to set aside a verdict finding the defendant guilty merely because this court may, on the written evidence in the record, entertain doubts of the correctness, of the finding. Unless the court is clearly satisfied that the verdict,, under the evidence, was wrong, it must stand.</p>