Richardson v. Kelly

• Decision Date: 30 June 1877
• Citation: 1877 WL 9597,85 Ill. 491
• Parties: HENRY RICHARDSON et al.v.WILLIAM KELLY.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

85 Ill. 491

1877 WL 9597 (Ill.)

HENRY RICHARDSON et al.

v.WILLIAM KELLY.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June Term, 1877.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Calhoun county; the Hon. CYRUS EPLER, Judge, presiding.

Mr. GEO. W. HERDMAN, for the appellant.

Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE SCHOLFIELD delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was trover, by appellants against appellee, for the conversion of a mare,

A race was run by the mare in controversy, with a mare belonging to appellee and one Ruyl, on the 7th of February, 1874, on the result of which, one mare was wagered against the other. After the race was run, appellee, claiming that he had won the wager, went to the rider of the mare in controversy, who was holding her, and took her away from him; and since then, he has detained and converted her to his own use.

Appellants claimed that the race was not run as it was agreed it should be, and, therefore, denied the right of appellee to take the mare.

The chief controversy at the trial was, whether the mare belonged to appellants or to one Parker. Appellants were both sworn, and examined as witnesses on their own behalf, and they each testified, as did also Parker, that at the time of the race, and when it was agreed to be run, the mare belonged to appellants. They are also fully corroborated by one Dewey, who testified that he was present at the sale, and partially by one Hammond, who, though not present at the sale, was cognizant of the change of possession from appellants to Parker of another mare, given in part payment.

The race was agreed upon between Parker and appellee and Ruyl--Parker acting, however, as he testifies, and as appellants and Dewey, also, testify he was to act in making the race, as agent for appellants. Appellee and Ruyl testify that they had no knowledge, either when the race was agreed upon or when it was run, that the mare belonged to appellants; that they supposed she belonged to Parker, and that they would not have agreed to make the race with appellants. Evidence was also given of declarations of appellants, at, and subsequent to the running of the race, to the effect that they had no interest in the race, or the mare in controversy. John Churchman testified that he remembered a publication, in a newspaper published at Hardin, in regard to the race; that after that, and on the Tuesday before the race came off, Parker told him, if he saw appellee and Ruyl, to say to them that it was a blind about his selling the mare to appellants; that the article in the newspaper about his having sold the mare to appellants, was put in to deceive his wife and mother-in-law, who were opposed to his running the race; and that they need pay no attention to it, as “he intended to run the race on the square.” He also testified that, on the day of the race, he heard Parker say he did not know what appellants were squealing about; that he was satisfied with the race. Andrew J. Poor testified that he was at the race, and saw Parker on the track, and Parker said to him that he had the best mare in the world, and if she could not win on that track, he did not want her. N. Everhart testified that he was at the race, and heard Parker say that he did not know what appellants were disputing about, for they did not own the mare and had nothing to lose. John Condon testified that he was at the race, and heard Parker say the race was fair, and that the mare was his.

None of these...