{
  "id": 441633,
  "name": "Jeptha Ray, Appellant, v. Josiah F. Wooters, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ray v. Wooters",
  "decision_date": "1857-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "82",
  "last_page": "83",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "19 Ill. 82"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 189,
    "char_count": 2506,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.465,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.106312036677555e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9741957928821333
    },
    "sha256": "a918de1ae108212997ef50ae7f56a4e228e683edd7ebbead6b63fcfdbbb4fdae",
    "simhash": "1:16983f7a2fe78f07",
    "word_count": 417
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:41:17.680763+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Jeptha Ray, Appellant, v. Josiah F. Wooters, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Skinner, J.\nThe court, after giving, at the instance of the defendant below, several instructions in writing, as the bill of exceptions states, \u201c proceeded orally to explain and qualify said instructions to the jury.\u201d The statute provides: \u201c That hereafter no judge of the Circuit Court shall instruct the petit jury, in any case, civil or criminal, unless such instructions are reduced to writing,\u201d \u2014 \u201cand he shall in no case, after instructions are given, orally qualify, modify, or in any manner explain the same to the jury.\u201d Statutes 1856, 829.\nThis statute plainly inhibits the Circuit Courts from changing or in any measure affecting orally the law as stated in written instructions given; and in a case of so clear intention of the law-making power, there is no room by construction to avoid consequences, however inconvenient in practice, or detrimental to the administration of justice.\nThe law being so written, the courts must submit to and abide the mandate, and trust to the wisdom of the legislature for such change as experience may suggest. It is true, it does not appear what the oral explanations and qualifications were ; yet the words import a modification, limitation, restriction or construction of the written instructions, and, therefore, a change in some degree of the law as stated in writing. This is plainly forbidden.\nWe presume the court did not intend, without consent of the parties, in any material matter of law, to orally instruct the jury; but from the language of the bill of exceptions, we can treat the case only in the light before stated; although upon the argument it is conceded that the explanations so orally given were in fact immaterial.\nJudgment reversed and cause remanded.\nJudgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Skinner, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. N. Haynie and Silas L. Bryan, for Appellant.",
      "H. K. S. Omelyeny, for Appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Jeptha Ray, Appellant, v. Josiah F. Wooters, Appellee.\nAPPEAL PROM MARION.\nA judge, on the trial of a cause, has no authority to affect or change the law as stated in written instructions, by any expressions not in writing.\nThis was a trial, in the Circuit Court, of an action for slander. There was a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff below, for two hundred and seventy-five dollars. The bill of exceptions states that the court gave the instructions as modified\u2014 \u201c Thereupon the court proceeded orally to explain and qualify said instructions to the jury.\u201d The cause was tried before Breese, Justice, and a jury, at September term, 1857, of the Marion Circuit Court.\nJ. N. Haynie and Silas L. Bryan, for Appellant.\nH. K. S. Omelyeny, for Appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0082-01",
  "first_page_order": 82,
  "last_page_order": 83
}