People ex rel. Ramler v. Stromberg

Appellate Court of Illinois

People ex rel. Ramler v. Stromberg

202 Ill. App. 11, 1916 Ill. App. LEXIS 813

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedNovember 14, 1916

DocketGen. No. 22,355

StatusPublished

This text of 202 Ill. App. 11 (People ex rel. Ramler v. Stromberg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People ex rel. Ramler v. Stromberg, 202 Ill. App. 11, 1916 Ill. App. LEXIS 813 (Ill. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Evidence, § 476*-—what fact not conclusive as to where weight of evidence lies. Where the evidence is conflicting, the fact that the witnesses on one side outnumber those on the other side is not conclusive of the question where the weight of evidence lies, since the weight of evidence does not depend solely on the number of witnesses. 2. Bastards, § 22*—when evidence shows illicit relations of defendant with prosecutrix. In a bastardy proceeding where defendant denied the paternity of prosecutrix’s child, the following facts appeared: Prosecutrix was an ignorant woman, unacquainted with English, and contradicted herself in her testimony, though it had the ring of truth, and detailed circumstantially her relations with defendant. There was no evidence showing a motive on her part to falsify or that she was a lewd woman or consorted with other men. Defendant relied on an alibi to prove which he called a number of witnesses greater than that testifying for prosecutrix, such witnesses being personal friends and relatives of defendant. Held, that the evidence was sufficient to show that prosecutrix and defendant had illicit relations for some months prior to conception and within a period not unusual for gestation. 3. Bastards, § 22*—when evidence not controlling as to time when child was begotten. In a bastardy proceeding where defendant denies the paternity of prosecutrix’s child, where the testimony shows that the child was born May 8th, the fact that prosecutrix menstruated several times after June of the previous year is not necessarily controlling as to the time when the child was begotten. 4. Bastards, § 22*—when finding that defendant was father of child not against weight of evidence. In a bastardy proceeding where defendant denied the paternity of prosecutrix’s child and relied on an alibi to prove which he called personal friends and relatives, a finding that defendant was the father, held not manifestly against the weight of the evidence, the weight of defendant’s evidence depending on the superior facility of the trial court for determining the credibility of the witnesses by seeing and hearing them, and observing their manner of testifying.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Evidence, § 476*-—what fact not conclusive as to where weight of evidence lies. Where the evidence is conflicting, the fact that the witnesses on one side outnumber those on the other side is not conclusive of the question where the weight of evidence lies, since the weight of evidence does not depend solely on the number of witnesses. 2. Bastards, § 22*—when evidence shows illicit relations of defendant with prosecutrix. In a bastardy proceeding where defendant denied the paternity of prosecutrix’s child, the following facts appeared: Prosecutrix was an ignorant woman, unacquainted with English, and contradicted herself in her testimony, though it had the ring of truth, and detailed circumstantially her relations with defendant. There was no evidence showing a motive on her part to falsify or that she was a lewd woman or consorted with other men. Defendant relied on an alibi to prove which he called a number of witnesses greater than that testifying for prosecutrix, such witnesses being personal friends and relatives of defendant. Held, that the evidence was sufficient to show that prosecutrix and defendant had illicit relations for some months prior to conception and within a period not unusual for gestation. 3. Bastards, § 22*—when evidence not controlling as to time when child was begotten. In a bastardy proceeding where defendant denies the paternity of prosecutrix’s child, where the testimony shows that the child was born May 8th, the fact that prosecutrix menstruated several times after June of the previous year is not necessarily controlling as to the time when the child was begotten. 4. Bastards, § 22*—when finding that defendant was father of child not against weight of evidence. In a bastardy proceeding where defendant denied the paternity of prosecutrix’s child and relied on an alibi to prove which he called personal friends and relatives, a finding that defendant was the father, held not manifestly against the weight of the evidence, the weight of defendant’s evidence depending on the superior facility of the trial court for determining the credibility of the witnesses by seeing and hearing them, and observing their manner of testifying.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 Ill. App. 11, 1916 Ill. App. LEXIS 813, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-ramler-v-stromberg-illappct-1916.