Roney v. Monaghan, 8 Ill. 85, 3 Gilm. 85 (1846)

Dec. 1846 · Illinois Supreme Court
8 Ill. 85, 3 Gilm. 85
John Roney, appellant, v. Owen Monaghan, appellee

John Roney, appellant, v. Owen Monaghan, appellee.

Appeal from Lake.

Where the evidence in an action of crim. con. taken and considered together, was of such a character as to warrant the inference drawn by the jury that a eiiminal intercourse existed between the parties charged, it was held, that the Court would not, upon an application for a new trial, disturb the verdict of the jury.

Trespass on the Case for crim. con. brought by the appellee against the appellant in the Lake Circuit Court. The case was heard before the Hon. Hugh T. Dickey, Judge of the Cook County Court, and a jury, at the September term 1846, when a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff below for $225 damages. A motion for a new trial was made, overruled, and judgment entered upon the verdict of the jury.

*86 J. Pearson, argued for the appellant.

A written argument was filed by B. S. Morris & J. J. Brown, who relied upon the following principle of law:

Whenever there is strong probable ground to believe that the justice of the case has not been tried fully and fairly, or that the verdict is clearly against the weight of evidence, a new trial should be granted. Bacon v. Brown, 1 Bibb, 336; Price v. Cochran, ib. 571; Mahan v. Jane, 2 do. 33.

A. Lincoln, G. Spring & G. Goodrich, for the appellee.

The Opinion of the Court was delivered by

Purple, J.*

At the April term, A. D. 1846, of the Lake County Circuit Court, Monaghan sued Roney in an action of trespass for crim. con. The case was tried at the September term following, and a verdict found and judgment thereon rendered in favor of Monaghan for the sum of f}, 225 damages. Roney entered a motion for a new trial upon the ground that the verdict was against law and evidence. The motion was overruled, and Roney excepted.

The bill of exceptions contains the instructions of the Court, and the evidence in the cause. No objection appears to have been made upon the trial, either to the instructions or any portion of the testimony; and from any thing which the Court have been able to discover, the testimony was pertinent, and the instructions proper.

The only question presented by the record is, whether upon the evidence a new trial should have been allowed. We are of opinion that the motion was properly denied. We deem it unnecessary to review the evidence. Taken altogether, it is of a character to warrant the inference which the jury has drawn, that a criminal intercourse existed between Roney and the wife of Monaghan. In such cases, a Court will never disturb the verdict of a jury.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed with costs.

Judgment affirmed.