Case Name: Stephen A. Randall v. The People of the State of Illinois
Court: Illinois Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1872-01
Citations: 63 Ill. 202
Docket Number: 
Parties: Stephen A. Randall v. The People of the State of Illinois.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Reports
Volume: 63
Pages: 202–203

Head Matter:
Stephen A. Randall v. The People of the State of Illinois.
New teial—verdict against the evidence. In this case, the verdict of the jury is regarded as against the weight of the evidence, and the judgment of the court below is, for that reason, reversed.
Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Macon county; the Hon. Arthur J. Gallagher, Judge, presiding.
This was a prosecution under an indictment for forgery, found by the grand jury of Macon county at the July term of the Macon circuit court, 1871, against Stephen. A. Randall. The indictment contained two counts, the first charging him with forging a certain promissory note, and the second with having a certain forged promissory note in his possession, with intent to pass the same as true and genuine. The cause was tried at the November term, 1871, of said court, when the jury found the defendant guilty, and fixed his time of imprisonment in the penitentiary at one year. The defendant brings the record to this court, and asks that the judgment of the court below be reversed for the reason, among others, that the verdict of the jury is not sustained by the evidence.
Messrs. Bunn & Bunn, and Mr. C. B. Smith, for the plaintiff in error.

Opinion:
Per Cubiam :
We shall not discuss the evidence in detail in this case, as it will probably go before another jury, but content ourselves with saying that it is wholly insufficient to sustain the verdict. The defendant was convicted solely on the testimony of Blalock, who considers himself to have been defrauded by defendant, and who states that he has worked hard to secure his conviction. His evidence is flatly contradicted, in several of its vital points, by Griggs, a perfectly disinterested and reliable witness, and we are at a loss to comprehend how, in the face of the latter's testimony, the jury rendered this verdict.
We are of opinion the defendant was very improperly convicted on the evidence in this record, and should have another trial.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Judgment reversed.