{
  "id": 2621242,
  "name": "The Chicago and Alton Railroad Company v. Mary A. Buttolf",
  "name_abbreviation": "Chicago & Alton Railroad v. Buttolf",
  "decision_date": "1872-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "347",
  "last_page": "349",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "66 Ill. 347"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "25 Ill. 240",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "56 Ill. 344",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        817843
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/56/0344-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 227,
    "char_count": 3752,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.574,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5653202336016793e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6776174981630203
    },
    "sha256": "12e8e070fa6dc1292338a7e9ab8182036a25972ccf19c29e0de9c45a4f23105b",
    "simhash": "1:9026aca14f362ec1",
    "word_count": 624
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:46:41.963849+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The Chicago and Alton Railroad Company v. Mary A. Buttolf."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Breese\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThere are but two points raised on this record.\nUpon impannelling the jury, several of the jurors were asked by defendant\u2019s counsel this question: If, upon hearing the testimony, they should find it evenly balanced, which way they would be inclined to decide the case?\nThe plaintiff\u2019s counsel objected to the question and the court sustained the objection, and defendant excepted.\nOn one ground, if no other, the question was proper as determining the exercise of the defendant\u2019s right to a peremptory challenge, for, if the answer had been, they would find for the plaintiff, defendant could have challenged for cause.\nThe case of Chicago and Alton R. R. Co. v. Adler, 56 Ill. 344, is in point, and disposes of this question.\nThe remaining point is,refusing this instruction: \u201cThe jury are instructed that if they shall believe the plaintiff, Mrs. Buttolf, has, in her testimony, knowingly sworn falsely in any material point, they are at liberty to disregard all her testimony as unworthy of belief.\u201d\nOn the authority of the case of Crabtree v. Hagenbaugh, 25 Ill. 240, this instruction was properly refused.\nThe instruction was the same in that case, and this court said it was too broad. If the witness had so testified to a material fact, and there were no circumstances in the ease going to corroborate his evidence, then the jury would have the right to reject all of his evidence as unworthy of credit, but they should not reject such portions as might be corroborated by other unobjectionable evidence in the cause.\nThe element of corroboration being omitted, vitiated the instruction, and it was properly refused.\nOn the first point, the judgment must be reversed, and we have less hesitation in so deciding since we are satisfied, by an examination of the testimony, that the plaintiff is not entitled to the verdict, and justice has not been done. The evidence that she accepted the money from the company and signed the receipts understandingly, making no claim for any damages other than the loss of a scarf and some trifling hotel expenses, outweighs greatly her own unsupported statement, on which the verdict was rendered.\nThe judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.\nJudgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Breese"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Beckwith, Ayer & Kales, for the appellant.-",
      "Messrs. Eae & Mitchell, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The Chicago and Alton Railroad Company v. Mary A. Buttolf.\n1. Jury\u2014question proper to ask juror. During the impannelling of the jury in a civil cause, the defendant\u2019s counsel asked several jurors this question: If, upon hearing the testimony, they should find it evenly balanced, which way they would be inclined to decide the case ? The court below sustained an objection to such questions: Held, that the court erred, as the question was proper in determining the exercise of. defendant\u2019s right to a peremptory challenge.\n2. Evidence\u2014impeachment of witness. Where a witness is shown to have knowingly testified falsely to a material fact, and there are no circumstances in the case going to corroborate his testimony, then the jury will have the right to reject all his testimony as unworthy of credit; but they should not reject such portions of it as may be corroborated by other unobjectionable evidence in the cause.\n3. Where the court refused the following instruction: \u201cThe jury are instructed that if they shall believe that the plaintiff, Mrs. Buttolf, has, in her testimony, knowingly sworn falsely in any material point, they are at liberty to disregard all her testimony as unworthy of belief:\u201d Meld, no error, as it was too broad, and left out of consideration the element of corroboration.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Joseph E. Gary, Judge, presiding.\nMessrs. Beckwith, Ayer & Kales, for the appellant.-\nMessrs. Eae & Mitchell, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0347-01",
  "first_page_order": 347,
  "last_page_order": 349
}