Skip to main content
· 9/15/1873

Perteet v. People

Citations

  • 70 Ill. 171

Syllabus

<p>1. Continuance—on ground of absent witnesses. There is no error in overruling a motion for a continuance based on the ground of the absence of witnesses, in a capital case, where the testimony expected from one of them would be of no benefit to the accused, and the affidavit fails to show that the attendance of the other witness, a non-resident, can ever be procured.</p> <p>2. Criminal practice—witnesses not named on indictment. The prosecution in a criminal case is not restricted to the witnesses whose names are indorsed on the back of the indictment, a list of which is required to be furnished the accused, especially when notice is given that others will be called.</p> <p>3. Evidence—of threats to defendant not hewrd by him. On the trial of one for the murder of his wife, where the proof showed that the accused left the house where the homicide occurred, the defense will not be allowed to prove threats of violence against the defendant, which he did not hear or had any knowledge of at the time, for the purpose of showing a pretext for his leaving.</p> <p>4. Writ of error—in capital ease, does not take away the jurisdiction of the inferior court. The allowance of a writ of error in a capital case does not deprive the lower court of its jurisdiction, but only stays its authority to act or proceed until the determination of the writ of error.</p> <p>5. Same—filing remittitur or remanding order on reven'sal not necessanp to jurisdiction. The filing of a remittitur or remanding order of this court in the lower court, upon reversal, is not necessary to the jurisdiction of the latter court to proceed with the cause. The omission to file a remanding order is simply an irregularity, that may be waived.</p> <p>6. Where a judgment convicting one of murder was reversed, and the defendant appeared in the court in which the conviction was had, and read the opinion of this court, and, after the cause was redocketed, asked for and obtained a change of venue, it was held, that

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • upholding district court’s dismissal of unjust enrichment 10 claim because insurance policies existed between the parties and plaintiff could have pleaded a 11 breach of contract claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Craig, McAllister, Scholfield, Scott

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.