{
  "id": 5284197,
  "name": "Indiana, Decatur & W. Ry. Co. v. August Hendrian, Adm",
  "name_abbreviation": "Indiana, Decatur & W. Ry. Co. v. Hendrian",
  "decision_date": "1900-12-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "462",
  "last_page": "463",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "92 Ill. App. 462"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 224,
    "char_count": 3047,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.524,
    "sha256": "f97700abd5ef9bc941cdd7f0cbe6b6ea525873b83603dca01a5de8aef154c583",
    "simhash": "1:aa553472843a5776",
    "word_count": 530
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:47:26.957327+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Indiana, Decatur & W. Ry. Co. v. August Hendrian, Adm."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding- Justice Harker\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis was an appeal from a judgment of $1,500 recovered by appellee in a suit against appellant for the killing of appellee\u2019s intestate by an engine on appellant\u2019s road at Decatur.\nThe deceased was a boy of about twelve years of age. Be and three other boys, about the same age, got upon the foot-board of a switch engine in appellant\u2019s yard to ride to a brick yard for which they had started. The engineer, on discovering the boys and while the engine was moving, started toward them. The three boys testified that he ordered them to get off, that he kicked one of them in the back and kicked deceased with such force that he fell off and was run over by the engine. The engineer denied that he ordered the boys off or kicked either of them. In the conflict it was the province of the jury to find the truth. If the testimony of the boys is true, appellant is liable. To our minds, there appears a clear preponderance that way. It is the testimony of three disinterested witnesses against one, and their testimony is fully as reasonable and consistent as his.\nComplaint is made of the action of the court in allowing appellee, after the instructions had been read to the jury, to introduce another witness. That was a matter that rested within the sound discretion of the court. The testimony so admitted was not upon a disputed question, and was not prejudicial to appellant.\nAmong the instructions tendered by appellant was one telling the jury that \u201c in determining the weight and preponderance of the evidence if they believe any witness has sworn falsely on any matter, they have a right to take such fact into consideration in determining the amount of credibility to be given to the evidence of such witness in any matter about which he may have testified.\u201d The court inserted after the word \u201chas\u201d and before the word \u201csworn\u201d the word \u201cwillfully\u201d and read the instruction to the jury so modified. He erased the inserted word at once, however, and read the instruction to the jury with the word so erased.\nAppellant contends the action of the court in that regard was reversible error. We regard it as an unimportant and harmless irregularity.\nWe see no error in the record sufficient to justify a reversal. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding- Justice Harker"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "R. D. Marshall and Outten & Roby, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Charles M. Borohers and Albert GL Webber, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Indiana, Decatur & W. Ry. Co. v. August Hendrian, Adm.\n1. Jury\u2014Province of, in a Conflict of Testimony.\u2014In a conflict of testimony, it is the province of the jury to determine where the truth lies.\n2. Practice\u2014Introduction of Witnesses After the Instructions Are Read.\u2014Allowing a party to introduce witnesses after the instructions have been read, is a matter resting in the discretion of the court.\nTrespass on the Case.\u2014Death from negligent act. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Macon County; the Hon. Edward P. Vail, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the May term, 1900.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 7, 1900.\nR. D. Marshall and Outten & Roby, attorneys for appellant.\nCharles M. Borohers and Albert GL Webber, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0462-01",
  "first_page_order": 486,
  "last_page_order": 487
}