{
  "id": 5059359,
  "name": "A. W. Metcalfe v. Henry Gunkel",
  "name_abbreviation": "Metcalfe v. Gunkel",
  "decision_date": "1892-02-26",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "200",
  "last_page": "202",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "43 Ill. App. 200"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 290,
    "char_count": 4104,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.518,
    "sha256": "f68c46211c29e2e5ef342503c3080c4d2e84d02acae078297e70c96e95a06e24",
    "simhash": "1:a705b41957ac62c7",
    "word_count": 709
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:21:13.881293+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "A. W. Metcalfe v. Henry Gunkel."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Sample, J.\nThe declaration filed in this cause counts in trespass and case. The first count charges trespass to the plaintiff\u2019s close, to wit, a strip of land one rod wide meandering along Cahokia Creek for some distance, purchased by the plaintiff for the purpose of obtaining a \u00a1n\u00favate way to his lands. The second count in case charges defendant with obstructing such way by making a ditch across same and constructing an embankment so as to divert the water in case of overflow of Cahokia Creek so that it is turned upon plaintiff\u2019s land, injuring the same, and into said ditch crossing said way so that the wash thereof will so deepen it as to require plaintiff to construct a bridge at a large expense, to wit, at an expense of $300. The defendant pleaded not guilty and license as to first count, and not guilty as to second. Trial was had before a jury which found for defendant, and the motion made by the plaintiff for new trial was overruled, and the case is brought here with the usual assignment of errors, all of which are insisted upon in the argument of counsel for appellant. The issues joined in this case simply raises the question, first, whether the defendant had trespassed upon the plaintiff\u2019s private way, or if he did, was he licensed so to do. Second, whether he had dug or plowed a ditch across that way and raised an embankment and thereby diverted water, through the ditch, so as to wash and deepen it so that plaintiff would have to build a bridge, and that such water so diverted would also overflow plaintiff\u2019s lands adjoining. These were questions of fact for the jury. In order to determine the correctness of that finding we have read and examined carefully the full record, which does not purport to contain all the evidence introduced. On record page twenty-one, the plaintiff testified that the defendant\u2019s land had been cultivated up to within about five feet of the bank of the creek, and then the record states, \u201cWitness takes the plat and explains to the jury in regard to the levee and ditch.\u201d Again, this appears in record: \u201c Here follows a long explanation of plat as to water, direction of creek, dijch, and levee, and where the water stood.\u201d Then the next question is, \u201cWhat are your damages by reason of this water yon speak of; state to the jury definitely.\u201d That question, from its context, evidently related to what the witness had told the jury, of which this court is in ignorance. On record page twenty-four, this appears: \u201cThen follows a long explanation of the plat as to the embankment, the direction of the creek, the water across the plaintiff\u2019s bottom land, where the ground in question was plowed, and the points where the tenants traveled, also the narrow place in road, the points where certain tree or trees stood, their size, etc., and the direction of dyke.\u201d\nOn page twenty-six of record this appears in regard to the evidence of Leverett, the surveyor, an important witness: After being asked a few preliminary questions, \u201c Then the witness is interrogated on the plat as to distance, points, and meanderings of creek, the ditch, dyke, public road elevations on surface of ground, the direction the water would run.\u201d The vital part of the evidence of several other witnesses seems to have been omitted in the same way on pages twenty-nine, thirty and thirty-four of this record. On page forty-four such summarizing is concluded with these words: \u201cPlat, plat, ad nauseum.\u201d It does not need the citation of authorities to show that this court can not properly try a case on such a record, when the assignments of error are directed at what occurred on the trial. Judgment is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Sample, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. A. W. Metcalfe, for appellant.",
      "Mr. T. L. GrAERTHER, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "A. W. Metcalfe v. Henry Gunkel.\nPractice\u2014Imperfect Record.\nThis court declines to interfere with the judgment for the defendant in the case presented, the record not purporting to contain all the evidence introduced in the court below.\n[Opinion filed February 26, 1892.]\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Madison County; the lion. B. IL Burroughs, Judge, presiding.\nMr. A. W. Metcalfe, for appellant.\nMr. T. L. GrAERTHER, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0200-01",
  "first_page_order": 196,
  "last_page_order": 198
}