#### Henry Hawk, Appellee, v. Farmers’ Serum Company, Appellant.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Madison county; the Hon. J. F. Gh-lham, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1916.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed November 13, 1916.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Henry Hawk, plaintiff, against the Farmers’ Serum Company, defendant, to recover for damage to growing crops due to trespassing hogs belonging to defendant. From a judgment for plaintiff for six hundred dollars and costs, defendant appeals.

C. E. Pope, for appellant.

M. B. Sullivan, for appellee. „

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Yds, XI to XY, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Presiding Justice Higbee

delivered the opinion of the court.

*617Abstract of the Decision.

1. Animals, § 46 * —When damages for injury to crops by hogs are not excessive. In an action for damages for injury to plaintiff’s crops by defendant’s hogs in an adjoining field getting into plaintiff’s fields and destroying a part of said crops therein, held, that the amount of damages accruing to the plaintiff was a question of fact to be determined by the jury from the evidence, and that a verdict for six hundred dollars was sustained by the evidence.

2. Damages, § 172*—what testimony is proper to show previous estimate of amount of loss. In an action for damages, a question asked of the plaintiff whether he had instituted a former suit against another person for the same loss in which the damages were laid at a less sum than in the suit on trial is proper as tending to show his estimate of the amount of his loss at that time.

3. Witnesses, § 181*—When refusal of repetition of proper question is not error. It is not error to refuse a repetition of a proper question which has already been asked and answered.