Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

4 Ill. 15

Leigh v. Hodges

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided July 15, 1841

Illinois Supreme Court · decided 1841-07-15

<p>Error to Montgomery.</p> <p>A motion to withdraw a plea is always addressed to the discretion of the Court.</p> <p>It is not error for the Circuit Court to permit a defendant to withdraw his plea of the general issue, after issue has been taken .upon that and several special pleas.</p> <p>Witnesses, who are subpoenaed in a cause, are entitled to their fees, whether they are sworn or not.</p> <p>It is a well settled rule, that exceptions to the charge of the judge should be taken at the time the charge is given, and before the jury retire, though they need not then be written out. It is too late to take exceptions after the verdict is rendered.</p> <p>It does not always follow that a new trial will be granted, even if the jury find against the weight of evidence, against the instructions of the Court, or through misdirection of the Court on a point of law, provided the Court is satisfied that justice has been done.</p> <p>A compromise may be proved by a surety, who is a stranger to the acts done by his principal, in effecting the compromise of an obligation, by less testimony than would be necessary on the part of the principal, to prove the same fact.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 1912

1 state decisions

Relies on Wardell v. Hughes · Archer v. Hubbell

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1841-07-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Scates, Justice:

¶1I concur in the affirmance of the judgment; but I do not in the reasoning of the majority of the Court, that a motion for a new trial will not present, for the consideration of the Court below, and of this Court, any misdirection or improper instruction of the Court to the jury, whether excepted to on the trial or not. I am of opinion that such misdirection or instruction properly comes up for consideration on such motion, although not excepted to when given.

¶2Judgment affirmed.

¶3D. A. Smith, for the plaintiff in error, moved for a re-hearing in this cause, and cited 3 Wend. 418; Archer v. Hubbell, 4 Wend. 514; Benham v. Cary, 11 Wend. 83.

¶4The motion was overruled.

/4/ill/15 · .json · Public domain