{ "id": 5103240, "name": "East St. Louis Connecting Railway Company v. Susan P. Allen", "name_abbreviation": "East St. Louis Connecting Railway Co. v. Allen", "decision_date": "1894-06-23", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "32", "last_page": "34", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "54 Ill. App. 32" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [], "analysis": { "cardinality": 298, "char_count": 4675, "ocr_confidence": 0.468, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.059290872914158e-08, "percentile": 0.37464964173586957 }, "sha256": "6794b702ec46c79b59dc66b6161116b80c87fcd5e75f38ad2703e42b6a67fb5e", "simhash": "1:fd2c2cf299d590d9", "word_count": 807 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:49:51.601388+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "East St. Louis Connecting Railway Company v. Susan P. Allen." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Scofield\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nAppellee and her husband, while riding in a wagon, were injured by a collision with one of appellant\u2019s trains of cars.\nThe facts in this case are practically the same as in the case of appellant against E. P. Allen, the husband of appellee, decided at the present term. We deem it unnecessary to rehearse the evidence, but refer to the opinion in the case just mentioned for the statement of the facts. We think the evidence justifies the verdict in this case.\nAll questions relating to the pleadings, and to the admissibility of evidence as being part of the res gestae, have been considered in the E. P. Allen case, and there disposed of adversely to the contention of appellant\u2019s counsel. A repetition of our views upon the questions would answer no useful purpose.\nThe objection to appellee\u2019s first instruction is that she had nothing to do with the manner in which the team approached the crossing, for the reason that her husband was driving, and that it was error, therefore, to tell the jury that due care and caution on her part must be shown to authorize a recovery. Then why did counsel for appellant cause the same question to be submitted to the jury in appellant\u2019s fifth instruction, which told the jury that it was incumbent on appellee to prove that she was in the exercise of reasonable care at the time of the injury and that appellant\u2019s servants were guilty of negligence ? A party who asks, and causes the court to give, instructions upon a certain theory, can not complain of instructions on the same theory when given at the instance of the other party.\nIt is said that appellee\u2019s third instruction is erroneous as being a resiom\u00e9 of the whole case and as assuming that there was evidence on certain points, when there was no evidence on those points whatever. We think that there was evidence to sustain the hypothesis stated by the instruction, and that, if the jury found the facts to be as supposed in the instruction,\" appellee was entitled to a verdict.\n- The objection to appellee\u2019s fourth instruction is that it authorizes, among other elements of damages, the recovery of \u201c necessary expenses in and about being treated for and cured of \u201d the injuries sustained, \u201c so far as all these things, if. proved, may be shown by the evidence.\u201d It is said that there was no evidence to show what, if anything, was expended in the treatment of appellee. The clause as to expenses should have been omitted from the instruction; and yet we are satisfied that the jury, were not misled thereby to the prejudice of appellant in the assessment of damages. The amount of the verdict was very moderate under the circumstances. Error which works no actual injury can not be used to procure the reversal of a judgment.\nIt is affirmed that appellee\u2019s seventh instruction should not have been given because it was directed at one of appellant\u2019s witnesses. The instruction mentions no name. There was evidence upon which to base it, and it contained all the elements which are .necessary to authorize the rejection of the testimony of a witness who has willfully sworn falsely on a material point. The instruction was properly worded and qualified, and we do not believe that it was error to give it.\nUpon careful consideration of the record, we see no reason why the court should \"have given any of appellant\u2019s refused instructions.\nThe judgment is affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Scofield" } ], "attorneys": [ "Charles W. Thomas, attorney for appellant.", "Geo. C. Rebhan and Wise & McNulty, attorneys for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "East St. Louis Connecting Railway Company v. Susan P. Allen.\n1. Instructions\u2014Who Can Not Complain.\u2014A party who asks and causes the court to give instructions upon a certain theory, can not complain of instructions on the same theory when given at the instance of the other party.\n2. Same\u2014Errors Which Do Not Mislead.\u2014Where the court is satisfied that the jury have not been misled by an instruction to the prejudice of the opposite party, the judgment will not be reversed.\nMemorandum.\u2014Action for personal injuries. Appeal from, the Circuit Court of St. Clair County; the Hon. Alonzo S. Wildbrman, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the February term, 1894,\nand affirmed.\nOpinion filed June 23, 1894.\nAppellee's seventh instruction:\nVII. The court further instructs you that if you believe from the evidence that any person who has testified before you asa witness in this case, has willfully sworn falsely as to any matter material to the issues in this case, then you are at liberty to disregard the evidence of such witness, except in so far as you may find it to be corroborated by other credible evidence given before you in this case.\nCharles W. Thomas, attorney for appellant.\nGeo. C. Rebhan and Wise & McNulty, attorneys for appellee." }, "file_name": "0032-01", "first_page_order": 30, "last_page_order": 32 }