Rainforth v. People

Citations

• 61 Ill. 365

Syllabus

<p>1. Evidence—admissibility of. Upon the trial of a party prosecuted under an indictment charging him with obtaining money under false pretenses, the prosecuting witness, the party alleged to have been defrauded, testified that the prisoner represented he had a large quantity of nutmeg graters and weather strips, and that he was induced, by his representations as to the profits arising from the sale of them, to embark in the business with him, and that he paid him $200. On cross-examination, the witness Was asked: “Did you not get fifty-six dozen nutmeg graters ?” Held, it was error to refuse to permit the question to be answered. The prisoner had the right to any testimony which might show his representations to be true, and any evidence which showed that the property, or any part of it, was owned by the prisoner, and was obtained by the prosecutor, should have been received as explanatory of the character of the representations.</p> <p>2. Jury—taking written evidence withthem on their retirement. The jury, on their retirement, were permitted to take a portion of the written evi- ' deuce introduced on the trial, but the court refused the application of the prisoner to permit them to have the other written evidence. Without deciding as to the propriety of the course pursued in permitting the jury to take with them written evidence, this court holds that the action of the circuit court in that respect was unjust to the prisoner; that all the written evidence should have been taken by the jury, or none.</p>