#### Maud Wentworth, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant.

Gen. No. 23,315.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Abstract of the Decision.

L Appeal and ebbob, § 1411 * —when verdict based on conflicting evidence not disturbed. Where the evidence is conflicting and that of the plaintiff when taken alone is sufficient to support the verdict, the verdict will not be set aside and the judgment reversed although the testimony of the plaintiff may be the only evidence supporting the verdict, and there may be the testimony of several witnesses contradicting that of the plaintiff, except *117where a careful examination of the record leads to the conclusion that the verdict and judgment are clearly against the manifest weight of the evidence.

*116Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Theodore Beentano, Judge, presiding.

Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1917.

Reversed with finding of facts.

Opinion filed March 13, 1918.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Maud Wentworth, plaintiff, against Chicago City Railway Company, defendant, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained while plaintiff was attempting to board one of defendant’s street cars. From a judgment for plaintiff for $500, defendant appeals.

William H. Stmmes and Frank L. Kriete, for appellant; J. R. Guilliams and Warner H. Robinson, of counsel.

William Gillespie, for appellee.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vole. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mb. Justice Thomson

delivered the opinion of the court.

*1172. Evidence, § 475 * —when preponderance of is with defendant. The preponderance of the evidence held to be clearly against the plaintiff and in favor of the defendant, where plaintiff was the only witness in her behalf and her testimony was unconvincing and uncorroborated, and the testimony on behalf of the defendant was clear and convincing and uncoritradictory.

3. Damages, § 240*—when verdict is based upon sympathy of jury. Where plaintiff alleged damages for injuries, claimed to have been caused by defendant’s negligence, at $5,000, and the injuries were severe and painful and such as to entitle her to substantial damages, and plaintiff was a woman 50 years of age, practically alone in the world, and dependent upon herself for a living, and the • preponderance of the evidence was clearly against her and in favor of defendant, held that a verdict of $500 indicated that the jury were moved to find in her favor and give such damages because of sympathy for her.