{ "id": 4862030, "name": "Robert L. Lyons et al. v. Emma J. Lawrence", "name_abbreviation": "Lyons v. Lawrence", "decision_date": "1883-01-30", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "531", "last_page": "533", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "12 Ill. App. 531" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "5 Gilm. 213", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Gilm.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "1 La. Ann. 93", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "La. Ann.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "13 S. & M. 527", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "S. & M.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "16 Conn. 131", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Conn.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "45 Ill. 277", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 424976 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/45/0277-01" ] }, { "cite": "15 Ill. 453", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 436631 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/15/0453-01" ] }, { "cite": "68 Ill. 250", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2626676 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/68/0250-01" ] }, { "cite": "62 Ill. 235", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2608441 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/62/0235-01" ] }, { "cite": "39 Ill. 367", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5260627 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/39/0367-01" ] }, { "cite": "1 Scam. 110", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Scam.", "case_ids": [ 2484048 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/2/0110-01" ] }, { "cite": "1 Scam. 50", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Scam.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "27 Ia. 500", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Iowa", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "13 Mass. 218", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 2073696, 2073716 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mass/13/0178-02", "/mass/13/0178-01" ] }, { "cite": "12 Pick. 519", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pick.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "103 Ill. 485", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2802776 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/103/0485-01" ] }, { "cite": "64 Ill. 33", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5308561 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/64/0033-01" ] }, { "cite": "97 Ill. 620", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2842683 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/97/0620-01" ] }, { "cite": "70 Ill. 378", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5310005 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/70/0378-01" ] }, { "cite": "57 Ill. 244", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5240052 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/57/0244-01" ] }, { "cite": "46 Ill. 90", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5298400 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/46/0090-01" ] }, { "cite": "103 Ill. 449", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2804527 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/103/0449-01" ] }, { "cite": "13 Mass. 218", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 2073696, 2073716 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass/13/0178-02", "/mass/13/0178-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 453, "char_count": 5942, "ocr_confidence": 0.571, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.4216325851683087e-07, "percentile": 0.6491283854773 }, "sha256": "0dfaebc37d697fecdbec5d0effc4131d98551065de41781262e7236963aa03ab", "simhash": "1:7d5f32577905a6a9", "word_count": 1037 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:05:21.386693+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Robert L. Lyons et al. v. Emma J Lawrence." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Wilson, J.\nWe are of opinion that the court erred in rejecting the evidence offered to show that appellee had attempted to suborn witnesses. The evidence was admissible, not as part of the res gestee, but as containing an implied admission, that without the manufacture of evidence she had no sufficient case, and for such purpose it was competent.\nThe case of the Chicago City Railway v. McMahon, 103 Ill., covers the point squarely, where it is laid down as a well-settled rule that all efforts by either party to a suit, or .his authorized agent to destroy, fabricate, or suppress evidence may be shown, such acts being in the nature of an admission that the party has no sufficient case unless aided by suppressing evidence, or by the fabrication of more evidence.\nThe conduct of appellee in producing in court, and offering to the jury refreshments was improper and reprehensible, and would alone have justified the court in setting aside the verdiet. Too much care and precaution can not be used in guarding the jury against improper influence, and preserving the purity of jury trials. Great strictness in this regard is needful in order to give due confidence to parties in the results of their causes, and, as was said in Knight v. Freeport, 13 Mass. 218, \u201c Every one-ought to know that for any, even the least intermeddling with jurors, a verdict will always beset aside.\u201d\nThe judgment of the court below must be reversed, and the cause remanded.\nFeversed and remanded.", "type": "majority", "author": "Wilson, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Mr. Pliny N. Haskell, for appellants;", "Mr. W. B. Scates, for appellee;" ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Robert L. Lyons et al. v. Emma J Lawrence.\n1. Evidence of attempt to destroy or fabricate evidence admissible. \u2014 Al! efforts by either party to a suit or his authorized agent to destroy, fabricate, or suppress evidence may be shown, such acts being in the nature of an admission that the party has no sufficient case unless aided, by suppressing evidence or by the fabrication of more evidence.\n2. Offering refreshments to jury in court by party to suit. \u2014For any, even the least intermeddling with jurors, a verdict will always be set aside. Where appellee produced in court and offered to the jury-refreshments. Held, that this alone would justify a court in setting aside the verdict.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Thomas A. Horan, Judge, presiding.\nOpinion filed January 30, 1883.\nThis is an appeal from the judgment of the circuit court in. two cases, which, by stipulation of the parties, were consolidated and tried together as a single suit, one being an action of replevin originally commenced before a justice of the peace and taken by appeal to the circuit court; the other, a citation proceeding instituted by appellants in the probate court, and also appealed to the circuit court. The cases involved the ownership of certain articles of personal property, consisting of office furniture, books, etc.-, formerly belonging to one E. 8. Smith, of whose estate appellants were appointed administrator and administratrix, and as such claimed the property. Appellee claimed title under an alleged bill of sale from Smith and herself to one Woodruff, and a subsequent purchase by her from the latter.\nIt appears that after the death of Smith and appellee\u2019s purchase- from Woodruff, she brought her bill i.i chancery against appellants, praying for the sale of the property under an alleged pledge of the same to her by Smith in his lifetime, and that upon a final hearing upon the merits, the bill was dismissed for want of equity. The dismissal of this, bill was set up and relied upon by appellants in the court below as a bar to this suit.\nIt further appears that appellants offered evidence tending to show that appellee had attempted to bribe certain witnesses to testify in her behalf, but the court rejected the evidence, which ruling was duly excepted to.\nIt also appears\" that during the closing argument of plaintiff\u2019s counsel to the jury, she procured and offered to the jury refreshments in the presence of the court.\nThe jury found the title to the property in both suits to be in appellee, and that she was entitled to the possession of the same. The court overruled the defendant\u2019s motion for a new trial and rendered judgment for appellee. Appellants bring the case here for review, and assign errors covering the various points arising upon the record.\nMr. Pliny N. Haskell, for appellants;\nthat the bill in chancery to foreclose the pledge, is an estoppel to the present suit, cited Ruegger v. I. & St. L. R. R. Co. 103 Ill. 449.\nAs to res adjudicata: Hamilton v. Quimby, 46 Ill. 90; Rogers v. Higgins, 57 Ill. 244; Kelly v. Donlin, 70 Ill. 378; Garrick v. Chamberlain, 97 Ill. 620; Ind. & St. L. R. R. Co. v. Vance, 6 Otto, 450; Briscoe v. Lloyd, 64 Ill. 33.\nIt was error to refuse to admit evidence of an attempt of appellee to suborn witnesses: Morgan v. Frees, 15 Bar. 352; C. C. R\u2019y Co. v. McMahon, 103 Ill. 485; 2 Phillips on Evidence, 899, 961.\nIt is good ground for reversal that appellee endeavored to improperly influence the jury by offering them a lunch in court: Commonweath v. Roby, 12 Pick. 519; Knight v. Freeport, 13 Mass. 218; Ryan v. Harrow, 27 Ia. 500.\n\u2022A judgment for costs should never be rendered against an administrator or executor personally when he sues in his representative capacity: Church v. Jewett, 1 Scam. 50; Bailey v. Campbell, 1 Scam. 110; Hunter v. Bilyeu, 39 Ill. 367.\nWli^re objection to introduction of evidence was not made in court below, it is too late to raise it here Sargeant v. Kellogg, 5 Gilm. 213; K. & Ill. River R. R. Co. v. Chester, 62 Ill. 235; Allen v. Nichols, 68 Ill. 250.\nMr. W. B. Scates, for appellee;\nthat such matters only as have been examined and passed upon become res adjudicata, cited Gray v. Gillilan, 15 Ill. 453; Lloyd v. Lee, 45 Ill. 277; Packet Co. v. Sickles, 5 Wallace, 592; Holcomb v. Phelps, 16 Conn. 131; Johnson v. White, 13 S. & M. 527; Dnmford\u2019s Succession, 1 La. Ann. 93; Wells on Res Adjudicata and Stare Decisis, \u00a7\u00a7 3, 5, 13, 14." }, "file_name": "0531-01", "first_page_order": 527, "last_page_order": 529 }