{
  "id": 2829329,
  "name": "James I. Julian, Appellee, v. Henry Pierson and Charles B. Pierson, Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Julian v. Pierson",
  "decision_date": "1913-10-15",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 17,897",
  "first_page": "400",
  "last_page": "402",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "182 Ill. App. 400"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 264,
    "char_count": 3566,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.517,
    "sha256": "c1920544d84bb7df8ba7c69322658df1ff46eb50f8a5d5cd7ab1872180c7fe27",
    "simhash": "1:4f6eb5a5508a02f0",
    "word_count": 595
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:04:20.195306+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "James I. Julian, Appellee, v. Henry Pierson and Charles B. Pierson, Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Graves\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n5. Instbuctions, \u00a7 154 \u2014when modification is proper. In action for injuries sustained by a person who was knocked down by a horse which the defendant\u2019s servant was driving, an instruction stating that if the accident was caused either wholly or in part by want of reasonable care \u201cor attention to his situation\u201d on the part of the plaintiff was properly modified by striking out the quoted words.\n6. Witnesses, \u00a7 317*\u2014when instruction is properly refused. Where the record does not show that a witness had been in the employ of a defendant, the refusal of an instruction as to the duty of the jury not to disregard the testimony of such witness because of such employment was not error.\n7. Roads and bbidges, \u00a7 239*\u2014what evidence is admissible to show negligence. Where a person was injured by being knocked down by a horse while crossing a street, evidence which dealt solely with the desire of the driver to proceed on his journey after the accident should have been excluded, but in view of other evidence showing the same fact, and showing fast driving before the accident, the admission of such evidence was harmless.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Graves"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Matz, Fisher & Boyden, for appellants.",
      "Frederick Peake and Edward H. Taylor, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "James I. Julian, Appellee, v. Henry Pierson and Charles B. Pierson, Appellants.\nGen. No. 17,897.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Benjamin W. Pope, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1911.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 15, 1913,\nRehearing denied October 24, 1913.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Trial, \u00a7 195 \u2014when peremptory instruction may he given. A peremptory instruction for defendant should not be given where there is evidence in the record which fairly tends to establish the plaintiff\u2019s right to recover as alleged in his declaration.\n2. Negligence, \u00a7 204*\u2014what evidence precludes peremptory instruction. Where a plaintiff was knocked down and injured 'by a horse while crossing a street and the evidence tended to show due care by such plaintiff and negligence by the defendant\u2019s servant, in that the horse was driven at an immoderate speed, a peremptory instruction was properly denied.\n3. Roads and bridges, \u00a7 240*\u2014what are questions of fact. Whether a driver of a horse was negligent in driving rapidly and in not having hold of the lines, and whether the person knocked down and injured by such horse while crossing a street was exercising due care, held questions of fact as to which the jury\u2019s verdict will not be disturbed unless manifestly against the weight of the evidence.\n4. Instructions, \u00a7 11*\u2014when word must he explained. Where instructions, requested by the defendant, referring to acts that contributed to an injury, were modified by inserting the word \u201cproximately\u201d before \u201ccontributed,\u201d held that the use of such word without a definition, if erroneous, was an error that the defendant led the court into, and of which such defendant could not complain, since in another instruction prepared by them and given at their request the term \u201capproximately contributed\u201d is used and, as used, the words were synonymous.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by James I. Julian against Henry Pierson and Charles B. Pierson for damages for personal injuries. From a judgment for plaintiff for six hundred dollars, defendant appeals.\nMatz, Fisher & Boyden, for appellants.\nFrederick Peake and Edward H. Taylor, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XIV, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XIV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0400-01",
  "first_page_order": 424,
  "last_page_order": 426
}