testimony of plaintiff error in Illinois

1912In Kizer v. People, 211 Ill. 407 , the court said: ‘The authorities are agreed that there are two methods of averring the materiality of the testimony upon which the perjury is assigned, in common use and recognized in practically all the courts of this country and of England, and are, first, that without setting out all the facts from which the court may see the materiality of the evidence, the particular matter or testimony is set out with the averment of the pleader that it was material; or, second, the pleader may so state the issues and the matters sworn to in which it is alleged the perj

1911In Kizer v. People, 211 Ill. 407 , the court said: “The authorities are agreed that there are two methods of averring the materiality of the testimony upon which the perjury is assigned, in common use and recognized in practically all the courts of this country and of England, and are, first, that without setting out all the facts from which the court may see the ' materiality of the evidence, the particular matter or testimony is set out with the averment of the pleader that it was material; or, second, the pleader may so state the issues and the matters sworn to in which it is alleged the pe

1912In Kizer v. People, 211 Ill. 407 , the court said: ‘The authorities are agreed that there are two methods of averring the materiality of the testimony upon which the perjury is assigned, in common use and recognized in practically all the courts of this country and of England, and are, first, that without setting out all the facts from which the court may see the materiality of the evidence, the particular matter or testimony is set out with the averment of the pleader that it was material; or, second, the pleader may so state the issues and the matters sworn to in which it is alleged the perj

1911In Kizer v. People, 211 Ill. 407 , the court said: “The authorities are agreed that there are two methods of averring the materiality of the testimony upon which the perjury is assigned, in common use and recognized in practically all the courts of this country and of England, and are, first, that without setting out all the facts from which the court may see the ' materiality of the evidence, the particular matter or testimony is set out with the averment of the pleader that it was material; or, second, the pleader may so state the issues and the matters sworn to in which it is alleged the pe

1954(People v. Polenik, 407 Ill. 337 ; People v. Weber, 401 Ill. 584 ; People v. Nixon, 371 Ill. 318 .) In the record before us, the only evidence of the threats or physical mistreatment is the testimony of plaintiff in error that officer Gleason beat him up and threatened to keep him in jail at a time when the two men were alone in a room at the police station.

1954(People v. Polenik, 407 Ill. 337 ; People v. Weber, 401 Ill. 584 ; People v. Nixon, 371 Ill. 318 .) In the record before us, the only evidence of the threats or physical mistreatment is the testimony of plaintiff in error that officer Gleason beat him up and threatened to keep him in jail at a time when the two men were alone in a room at the police station.

1954(People v. Polenik, 407 Ill. 337 ; People v. Weber, 401 Ill. 584 ; People v. Nixon, 371 Ill. 318 .) In the record before us, the only evidence of the threats or physical mistreatment is the testimony of plaintiff in error that officer Gleason beat him up and threatened to keep him in jail at a time when the two men were alone in a room at the police station.

1952(People v. Kazmierczyk, 357 Ill. 592 .) The court here obviously believed the testimony of the prosecutrix, corroborated as it was in part by other witnesses, in preference to the testimony of plaintiff in error and his witnesses in defense.

1935(People v. Bugg, 345 Ill. 210 ; People v. Gordon, 344 id. 422; People v. Looney, 324 id. 375.) In this case the testimony of the accomplice is corroborated by at least three other witnesses in many of its important particulars, and in some respects is even corroborated by the testimony of plaintiff in error himself.

1935The facts before us do not bring the case within any cases such as People v. Alward, 354 Ill. 357 , relied on by plaintiff in error.

1926(People v. White, 311 Ill. 356 .) While Kittoe testified that Malone was sitting in a chair at the end of the table when plaintiff in error shot him, the testimony of plaintiff in error was to the effect that Malone sprang into a. crouching position and grabbed for a chair before he, plaintiff in error, raised his shot-gun and fired.

1924(People v. Martin, 303 Ill. 233 and 304 id. 494; People v. Hildebrand, 307 id. 544.) Disregarding the testimony of plaintiff in error’s father and mother, with whom he lived, that the car could not be used the week of December 13, and that they assisted plaintiff in error on different occasions during that week in trying to put it in running order, we cannot see any reason, because of the character of "the witnesses or on account of their relations with plaintiff in error, that there is any basis for disbelieving the employees of the Donnelly Corporation that plaintiff in error worked at that

1921(People v. Grove, 284 Ill. 429 .) The testimony of plaintiff in error as to being confined to his room, and as to his attempts to show that officers Wedemeier and Drake did not identify him, was of such a nature as to cause the jury to examine his testimony with unusual care.

1919This is contrary to the reasoning of this court in People v. Munday, supra, People v. Arnold, supra, Hellyer v. People, supra, and Sullivan v. People, 114 Ill. 24 .

1919This is contrary to the reasoning of this court in People v. Munday, supra, People v. Arnold, supra, Hellyer v. People, supra, and Sullivan v. People, 114 Ill. 24 .

1919This is contrary to the reasoning of this court in People v. Munday, supra, People v. Arnold, supra, Hellyer v. People, supra, and Sullivan v. People, 114 Ill. 24 .

1917(Black v. Hoopeston Gas and Electric Co. supra.) From the testimony of plaintiff in error it appears that he made the oral contract for the purchase of said real estate with one Bryson, local manager of defendant in error’s electric light plant at Hoopeston, and that that contract is substantially as alleged in his bill.

1914(Chicago City Railway Co. v. Ryan, 225 Ill. 287 ; Godair v. Ham Nat.

1913The question of the weight and credit to be given to each and every witness on either side is entirely for the jury.” The instruction in question, except as to the sentences above quoted, is substantially the same as the third instruction given for the People and approved by this court in Hirschman v. People, 101 Ill. 568 .

1912(Kimmel v. People, 92 Ill. 457 ; Greene v. People, 182 id. 278; Kizer v. People, 211 id. 407; People v. Threewitt, 251 id. 509.) The last expression of this court upon the subject is found in the Threewitt case, on page 511, where it is said: “The indictment stated that the testimony of plaintiff in error alleged to be false was material to the issue on the trial of said cause, and it was not necessary that the allegations of the indictment should show wherein said testimony became material.

1912(Hoyt v. People, 140 Ill. 588 ; Campbell v. People, 159 id. 9.) It is further contended that the testimony of these two accomplices should be given less weight because they contradicted themselves as to the number of times Kaczor made trips to Quinn’s place of business and as to the division of the proceeds of the burglary.' The testimony of the two witnesses for the State is in direct conflict with the testimony of plaintiff in error and his employee, McLaughlin.

1911VanVlissingen v. Lens, 171 Ill. 162 .

1910We therefore conclude that it was not reversible error to refuse instruction No. 14, although the instruction was approved under different circumstances in McElroy v. People, 202 Ill. 473 , and Schultz v. People, 210 Ill. 196 .

1910We therefore conclude that it was not reversible error to refuse instruction No. 14, although the instruction was approved under different circumstances in McElroy v. People, 202 Ill. 473 , and Schultz v. People, 210 Ill. 196 .

1905Moreover, it was-held in Weir v. Marley, 99 Mo. 484 , that a parol contract of that kind was not binding, and counsel for defendant in error do not contend that if such contract were proven it would be conclusive, but only that it should have “ considerable bearing on the question of the custody of the child considered in connection with other questions bearing on the interests of the child.” A number of cases and authorities are cited by counsel for defendant in error in their brief upon the proposition that in disposing of the custody of children the primary object should be what is to the b

1896Plaintiff in error asked that, mutatis mutcmdis, an instruction approved in Watt v. Costello, 40 Ill.