10 N.E. 223 (Ill. 1887), City of Joliet v. Conway

Citation:10 N.E. 223, 119 Ill. 489
Opinion Judge:SHOPE, J.
Party Name:CITY OF JOLIET v. CONWAY.
Attorney:[119 Ill. 490] Fred Bennitt, for City of Joliet, appellant.
Case Date:January 25, 1887
Court:Supreme Court of Illinois
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 223

10 N.E. 223 (Ill. 1887)

119 Ill. 489

CITY OF JOLIET

v.

CONWAY.

Supreme Court of Illinois

January 25, 1887

Appeal from appellate court, Second district.

[119 Ill. 490] Fred Bennitt, for City of Joliet, appellant.

J. L. O'Donnell, for Maria Conway, appellee.

SHOPE, J.

This was an action brought by appellee against appellant, the city of Joliet, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by reason of the failure of appellant to maintain in suitable repair a certain sidewalk in the city. A trial resulted in verdict and judgment for plaintiff below, from which the city prosecuted its appeal to the appellate court of the Second district, where the judgment of the circuit court was affirmed. From that judgment the city now prosecuted this further appeal to this court.

The judgment of affirmance by the appellate court has settled all controverted facts, and leaves, as it is conceded, but a single point now urged as error. The declaration is in the usual form. On the trial the plaintiff was called as a witness in her own behalf, and, after testifying to her injuries, their nature and extent, and their effect upon her ability to labor, she testified, without objection, that she had done housework for her family ever since she had been married until the time of her injury, etc. The [119 Ill. 491] evidence tended to show that, in consequence of these injuries received, she was incapacitated to perform such labor. She was then permitted to testify, against the objection of defendant, that, at the time of the injury, she was doing the housework for her husband and eight children. The errors assigned question the acmissibility of this evidence. The objection to this evidence might properly be disposed of upon the ground that, if its admission was erroneous, it could not have operated to the prejudice of the defendant. It had already been shown, properly and without objection, that the plaintiff was a married woman, residing with her husband; that she had been in good health, and had done her housework continuously from her marriage until she was injured as charged; also that one of the consequences of the injuries received was a miscarriage; that she was at the time nursing an infant, and, by reason of the injury to her breasts, the secretions were dried up, and that her injuries were of a very serious and probably permanent...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP