St. Clair County IL Archives Court.....Nowlin, V. Bloom 1825
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarchives.net/il/ilfiles.htm
************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Deb Haines http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00003.html#0000719 February 9, 2009, 12:38 am

Source: Il Court Reports, 1819-1830
Written: 1825

December Term 1825

James Nowlin, Plaintiff in Error, v. John Bloom, Defendant in Error.

ERROR TO ST. CLAIR.

Where the record is not the foundation of the action, a variance between the 
description of it in the narr. and the one produced is immaterial, e.g. if the 
narratio describes it as a record in a case of forcible entry and detainer, 
and it is a record in a case of peaceable entry, and forcible detainer, the 
variance is immaterial.

Opinion of the Court by Justice Browne. The plaintiff below, being a witness 
in an action of forcible entry and detainer, between one John Goodner and the 
said John Bloom which was tried before Edward P. Wilkinson, and James 
Mitchell, Esq., justices of the peace for St. Clair county, the said John 
Bloom charged the said James Nowlin with having sworn false on the said trial.

The defendant below filed three several pleas to the plaintiff's declaration: 
1. Not guilty: 2. The statute of limitations: 3. Justification. To which 
pleas, the plaintiff took issue. At the trial, the plaintiff below offered as 
evidence a record of peaceable entry and forcible detainer. The record 
corresponded in every other particular with the one referred to in the 
plaintiff's declaration, which record, the court below decided ought not to 
have been received in evidence, and set aside the verdict and directed a 
nonsuit on account of the variance.

This record was not the foundation of the action, but was only brought in 
collaterally to prove another fact, and for that purpose, was sufficiently 
described in the declaration.

The court below, therefore, erred in setting aside the verdict on that ground, 
because the record was properly before the jury.

For which reason, the judgment of the court below is reversed and sent back to 
render judgment on the verdict. (a) (1)

Judgment reversed.

Cowles, for plaintiff in error. 

Blackwell, for defendant in error.

------------------------
(a) In an action for a libel the plaintiff gave notice of justification with 
the general issue, stating that he would give in evidence at the trial, a 
record of the trial before the sessions of the term of June, 1810; the record 
produced was of June, 1809; but the variance was immaterial. Brooks v. Bemis, 
8 Johns., 455.

(1) See note to Taylor et al. v. Kennedy, ante, p. 91.

Additional Comments:
Reports of Cases at Common Law and in Chancery, Argued and Determined in the
Supreme Court of the State of Illinois, From its First Organization in 1819, 
to the End of December Term, 1831 

By Sidney Breese, Counsellor at Law
Second Edition, with Additional Notes, By Edwin Beecher

Chicago: Callaghan & Company, 1877.

File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/il/stclair/court/nowlin245gwl.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/ilfiles/

File size: 3.3 Kb