Case ID: ill_46/html/0123-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Chief Justice Breese", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Charles K. W. Howard v. Angus McDonald et al.
    
    
      Witnesses—credibility—instructions. If there is no evidence in a case tending to corroborate a witness, it is not error for the court to instruct the jury that, if they believe from the evidence that a witness has willfully sworn falsely upon any material point, they have the right to disregard his entire testimony.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of DuPage county ; the Hon. Isaac G. Wilson, Judge, presiding.
    This was an action of assumpsit, brought by McDonald, Laughlin & Co., appellees, against. Charles K. W. Howard, appellant, in the Circuit Court of DuPage county, to recover the value of a threshing machine. At the March term, 1865, the cause was tried, and the jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs, and assessed their damages at $400. A motion for a new trial was overruled, and judgment rendered upon the verdict. The case was brought to this court by appeal.
    The facts sufficiently appear from the opinion.
    Messrs. Barry & Botsford, for the appellant.
    Messrs. Vallette & Cody, for the appellees.
   Mr. Chief Justice Breese

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an action of assumpsit, for the.price of a threshing machine, sold and delivered by plaintiffs to the defendant, as claimed.

The defence was, that the machine was not purchased for the defendant; or on his responsibility, but by his son, and on his individual responsibility.

Much testimony was had on the point, including that of the son, and we think the weight of it preponderates in favor of the verdict. We do not clearly see how the jury could have found otherwise.

It is objected by the plaintiff in error, that the court improperly instructed the jury, by telling them, if they believed from the evidence, that Charles H. Howard had willfully sworn falsely upon any material point, the jury had the right to disregard his entire testimony. ■

There is no error in this instruction, on the authority of the cases cited by plaintiff in .error: Crabtree v. Hagenbaugh, 25 Ill. 240; Meixsell v. Williamson, 35 ib. 529; and Blanchard et ad., v. Pratt, 37 ib. 243, as there was no testimony tending to corroborate the witness, so that the jury could not have been misled.

Failing to add the qualification in this case was not error, as there was nothing on which to base the qualification. Full justice has been done by the verdict, and there is no error in the record which we can discover.

Judgment affirmed.