{
  "id": 4763118,
  "name": "Joseph B. Quinn v. Safford W. Rawson",
  "name_abbreviation": "Quinn v. Rawson",
  "decision_date": "1880-02-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "130",
  "last_page": "132",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "5 Ill. App. 130"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "76 Ill. 149",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5314701
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/76/0149-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "77 Ill. 377",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        821705
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/77/0377-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "71 Ill. 66",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5310267
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/71/0066-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "80 Ill. 51",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2683004
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/80/0051-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "69 Ill. 148",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2637216
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/69/0148-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "48 Ill. 107",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5227311
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/48/0107-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 Ill. 512",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "34 Ill. 306",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5289279
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/34/0306-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 266,
    "char_count": 3816,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.553,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.685371297493976e-08,
      "percentile": 0.49259339057991414
    },
    "sha256": "9142c496840b52a3cf1c291937e2e74f6315c672d07e6ecf55628def155b1349",
    "simhash": "1:d74da981c48f3446",
    "word_count": 662
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:37:29.512051+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Joseph B. Quinn v. Safford W. Rawson."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Wilson, J.\nThis was a suit brought by appellee against appellant to recover for professional services, claimed by him to have been performed as attorney for appellant. A trial was had before a jury, resulting in a verdict for appellee, with damages assessed at $500, for which sum he had judgment.\nOn the trial in the court below, the plaintiff offered in evidence an affidavit made by Thomas L. Humphreyville in support of a motion to set aside a judgment previously entered in the case. The evidence was admitted by the court against the defendant\u2019s objection, and exceptions were duly taken. The evidence was inadmissible. An affidavit of a person not a party to the record cannot be read as evidence on the trial of the cause unless by consent. It is but the statement 'of a third party, and the fact that it is a part of the files in the case does not change its character nor make it competent as evidence. Manny et al. v. Stockton, 34 Ill. 306.\nThe first instruction given by the court on the part of plaintiff was as follows: \u201c The court instructs the jury on the part of the plaintiff that if you believe from the evidence that any one of the witnesses herein has sworn falsely as to any material fact in controversy, then yon have the right to disregard the evidence of such witness entirely, except wherein such witness may be corroborated by other competent evidence.\u201d\nThis instruction was erroneous. The Supreme Court of this State, as well as this court, have repeatedly declared similar instructions to be improper. It does not follow that because a witness makes an untrue statement his entire testimony is to be disregarded unless corroborated. This depends on the motive of the witness. If he intentionally swears falsely as to one matter, the jury may properly reject his entire testimony as unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated. But if he makes a false statement through misapprehension or mistake, he ought not thereby to be discredited altogether. The instruction omitted the essential element that the witness must have knowingly or willfully sworn falsely before they were liable to be discredited for a misstatement. Brennan v. The People, 15 Ill. 512; City of Chicago v. Smith, 48 Ill. 107; Pollard v. The People, 69 Ill. 148.\nFor the errors of the court in admitting the affidavit, and in giving the plaintiff\u2019s first instruction, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the canse remanded.\nBeversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Wilson, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. T. L. Humphreyville and Mr. M. S. Bowen, for appellant;",
      "Mr. Chester Kinney, for appellee;"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Joseph B. Quinn v. Safford W. Rawson.\n1. Evidence\u2014Ex paete affidavits.\u2014An affidavit of a person not a party to the record, cannot be read as evidence on the trial of the cause unless by consent. It is but the statement of a third party, and the fact that'it is a part of the files in the case, does not change its character nor make it competent evidence.\n2. Fadsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.\u2014An instruction that if the jury find that a witness has sworn falsely as to any material fact they are at liberty to disregard his whole testimony, except where corroborated by other competent evidence, is erroneous. The rule depends upon the motive of the witness in making such statement. It is essential that the witness should have knowingly or willfully sworn falsely.\nAppeal from the County Court of Coolc county; the Hon. Mason B. Loomis, Judge, presiding.\nOpinion filed February 4, 1880.\nMr. T. L. Humphreyville and Mr. M. S. Bowen, for appellant;\nthat the jury had no right to disregard the testimony of witnesses for appellant, cited Evans v. George, 80 Ill. 51.\nMr. Chester Kinney, for appellee;\nthat preponderance does not depend altogether upon the number of witnesses, cited Gowen v. Kehoe, 71 Ill. 66.\nThe jury are sole judges of the weight of testimony: Andreas v. Ketcham, 77 Ill. 377.\nThe instruction is correct: Otmer v. The People, 76 Ill. 149."
  },
  "file_name": "0130-01",
  "first_page_order": 136,
  "last_page_order": 138
}