TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Corcoran v. Poncini

Chris. Corcoran v. Celia Poncini

Corcoran v. Poncini, 35 Ill. App. 130 (1889)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Court of Illinois · State Appellate Courts
Decided
December 24, 1889
Judges
Garnett
Citations
35 Ill. App. 1301889 Ill. App. LEXIS 513
Headnotes
Trespass—Assault and Battery—Damages—.Evidence —Testimony of Child—Criminal Law. 1. In an action of trespass, brought for the recovery of damages for injuries suffered by reason of an assault and battery, this court declines, in view of the evidence, to interfere with the verdict for the plaintiff. 2. In the case presented it is held: That the refusal to allow a boy ten years old to testify was proper, no statement having been made as to what was expected to be proved by him, and no question having been propounded to him from which the same could be inferred.
Summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Kirk Hawes, Judge, presiding.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Garnett

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Garnett, J. This is an action of trespass brought by appellee against appellant to recover damages for assault and battery. The jury rendered a verdict for $150 upon which judgment was rendered, and appellant now asks for a reversal. He says the verdict was against the evidence. The plaintiff and her sister testify positively to the striking. The only positive evidence to the contrary is that of the defendant himself. He called four other witnesses of the occurrence, only one of whom testified that she saw the whole transaction and she goes no further than to say that she did not see Corcoran strike the plaintiff. Ho one of the other three stated whether he struck her or not.

We have carefully examined the evidence, and find that a reversal on this ground would not be consistent with the rule that a verdict should remain undisturbed unless it is manifestly against the weight of the evidence.

The refusal of the court to permit Bernard Brady, a boy ten years old, to testify, is another point urged by appellant. The only question put to the proposed witness relates to his belief in God and a future life and his comprehension of the nature of an oath. Ho statement was made by counsel as to what he intended to prove by the witness, and as no question was propounded to him from which it can possibly be inferred that he knew anything of the material facts, the appellant’s case can not be said to have suffered from the ruling. Gaffield v. Scott, 33 Ill. App. 317 . No error is perceived in the giving or refusing of instructions. The judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1928: 11966: 119282026peak 1928 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Romeo v. United States24 F.2d 527 (9th Cir. 1928)
  2. William C. Holman, Warden, Kilby Prison, Montgomery, Alabama v. Edward Lawhon362 F.2d 1 (5th Cir. 1966)

Most recent

  1. William C. Holman, Warden, Kilby Prison, Montgomery, Alabama v. Edward Lawhon362 F.2d 1 (5th Cir. 1966)
  2. Romeo v. United States24 F.2d 527 (9th Cir. 1928)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Gaffield v. Scott, 33 Ill. App. 317 (1889) 23

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list