St. Louis v. James Terhune.

• Citation: 50 Ill. 151,1869 WL 5191,99 Am.Dec. 504
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 31 January 1869
• Parties: ST. LOUIS, JACKSONVILLE & CHICAGO RAILROAD CO.v.JAMES TERHUNE.

50 Ill. 151

1869 WL 5191 (Ill.)

99 Am.Dec. 504

ST. LOUIS, JACKSONVILLE & CHICAGO RAILROAD CO.

v.JAMES TERHUNE.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

January Term, 1869.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Menard county; the Hon. CHARLES TURNER, Judge, presiding.

This was an action on the case brought by Terhune against the St. Louis, Jacksonville & Chicago Railroad Company, to recover for damages resulting from an alleged violation of the statute, imposing upon railroad companies the duty to ring the bell or sound the whistle upon the engine at the crossing of public highways, as therein provided. The plaintiff alleged, that by reason of the failure of the defendant to comply with the statute in that regard, two cows, property of the plaintiff, of the value of $300, were run over and killed. On the trial the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and assessed his damages at $150. A motion for a new trial was overruled, and final judgment rendered upon the verdict. The defendants bring the cause to this court on appeal, and assign various errors upon which they rely for reversal.

Messrs. ROBERTS & GREENE and Mr. N. W. BRANSON, for the appellants.

Mr. T. W. MCNEELY, for the appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE WALKER delivered the opinion of the Court:

The question of the weight of evidence was for the jury, and they having determined it, we will not disturb their finding, unless it is not supported by the proof. It is their province to weigh and reconcile the evidence where it may be done, and if not, then to give it such effect as it is entitled to receive, rejecting such portions as may be unworthy of belief, and giving due weight to such as they may believe to be true. In this case there was a conflict of evidence as to whether a bell was rung or a whistle sounded for the distance required by law before reaching the road crossing where the cattle were killed. The jury having found there was not, we are not prepared to hold their finding is not supported by the evidence.

Appellants insist that the court below erred in giving appellee's third instruction. It informed the jury that the omission to ring a bell or sound a whistle at the road crossing as required by the statute, was prima facie evidence of negligence. In the case of the Galena & Chicago Union R. R. Co. v. Dill, 22 Ill. 271, it was held that it is a question of fact, to be determined by the jury, whether such an omission is negligence. In that case, the statute imposing that duty on railroad...