Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

86 Ill. App. 75

Morrill v. Lindemann

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided December 5, 1899

Appellate Court of Illinois · decided 1899-12-05

Trespass on the Case, for malicious prosecution, etc. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Richard S. Tuthill, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1898.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed and remanded · Decided 1899-12-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently February 1945

1 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

10189919001910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Presiding Justice Shepard

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2Appellee brought' his action, in trespass on the case, against the appellants for malicious prosecution and for false imprisonment, and recovered a verdict in his favor against both defendants (appellants) for $1,000, from which a remittutur of $250 was entered, and judgment rendered for $750.

¶3"The controversy arose out of the larceny of a dog belonging to appellant Morrill, traced into appellee’s possession.

¶4There was evidence under which the jtiry might have justifiably found Morrill not guilty; and by way of illustration it may be said that under the evidence either defendant might have been found guilty and the other not.

¶5The trial judge, however, told the jury that their “ verdict should be in one of the following forms,” which he gave to them in writing:

“ We, the jury, find the defendants guilty, and we assess the plaintiff’s damages at the sum of--.”
“We, the jury, find the defendants not guilty.”

¶6Although a trial judge is not obliged to prepare forms of verdict, yet if he undertakes to do so upon his own motion, the forms should be as complete as the case requires, especially in cases where the jury might be misled by incomplete forms, and imperfect instructions concerning them.

¶7The jury were, in this instance, told, in effect, that they must find both defendants guilty, or neither of them, and such is not the law as applied to the case at bar. The question is preserved by apt exception, in the motion for a new trial and by assignment of error.

¶8We can not regard the error as cured by one of the general instructions which told the jury that if they believed, from the evidence, certain things, then they might find the defendant Morrill not guilty.

¶9Non constat the jury believed such things to have been proved, and yet felt constrained by the oral direction of the court to return their verdict in one of the only two forms the court gave them as proper for them to return. . A specific instruction of that kind is much more likely to be followed by a jury than a general one.

¶10The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

/86/illapp/75 · .json · Public domain