The City of Pekin v. Winkel
| Decision Date | 31 January 1875 |
| Citation | 1875 WL 8263,77 Ill. 56 |
| Parties | THE CITY OF PEKINv.LOUIS WINKEL. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Tazewell county; the Hon. JOHN BURNS, Judge, presiding. Mr. WM. R. HALL, and Messrs. ROBERTS & GREEN, for the appellant.
Mr. WILLIAM L. PRETTYMAN, and Mr. GEORGE B. FOSTER, for the appellee.
This was case, in the Tazewell circuit court, by Louis Winkel, against the city of Pekin, to recover damages for injuries to plaintiff's lot in the city, caused by the construction of a railroad through the street on which plaintiff's lot abutted.
The general issue was pleaded, with leave to give any special matter in evidence.
The jury returned this verdict: We, the jury, find for the plaintiff, and assess the damages at two hundred and seventy-five dollars and sixteen and two-thirds cents ($275.16 2/3), signed by the foreman.
The court, without any motion to that end, directed the clerk to put the same in form, and the clerk then and there changed the verdict as follows: We, the jury, find the defendant guilty, and assess its damages at two hundred and seventy-nine dollars and sixteen and two-thirds cents ($279.16 2/3), signed by the foreman.
To this change the defendant objected and excepted, and entered a motion for a new trial.
This motion was overruled, and judgment rendered on the verdict, and defendant appeals.
The first point made by appellant is on this verdict as changed. We do not understand counsel as questioning the right of the court to put an informal verdict in form, especially when the reformed verdict is attested by the signature of the foreman. We would infer the amendment was made in the presence of the jury, and, of course, not objectionable; but the point is, as argued by appellant, that the amendment renders the finding ambiguous and uncertain. We think, taking into consideration the fact the jury found the defendant guilty, relieves the finding of all ambiguity in using the pronoun its instead of his. Really there was no necessity to amend the verdict as first rendered. The defect, if any, was cured by the Statute of Jeofails. Matson v. Connelly, 24 Ill. 142.
Another objection to the verdict is, that it was the result of chance, and so not the deliberate judgment of the jury. We deem the affidavit entirely insufficient for the purpose sought. It avers only the information and belief of the affiant. On what was such his information and belief predicated? Can it be that a busy-body about the purlieus of the court shall communicate such information, and shall it inspire belief, and must the court act on it? We think not. It would be the destruction of trials by jury, should it be permitted.
It is settled by this court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jaynes v. Omaha Street Railway Company
... ... ( Gottschalk v ... Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 14 Neb. 550; Rigney v. City ... of Chicago, 102 Ill. 64; City of Pekin v ... Winkel, 77 Ill. 56; City of Pekin v ... ...
-
The Chicago & Nw. Ry. Co. v. Bliss
...118 Mass. 114. The verdict was the result of chance and should have been set aside: Ill. Cent, R. R. Co. v. Able, 59 Ill. 131; City of Pekin v. Winkel, 77 Ill. 56; Dunn v. Hall, 8 Blackf. 32; Dana v. Tucker. 4 J. R. 487; Harvey v. Rickett, 15 J. R. 87. Messrs. MANAHAN & WARD, for appellees,......
-
The Chicago v. Berg
...39 Ill. 598; Hurdman v. Eastern R. R. Co. L. R. 3 C. P. Div. 168; Caro v. Met. Elevated R. R. Co. 19 Am. Law Reg. 384; City of Pekin v. Winkel, 77 Ill. 56; Elgin v. Eaton, 83 Ill. 535; Stack v. E. St. Louis, 85 Ill. 377; City of Pekin v. Brereton, 67 Ill. 477; Aurora v. Gillette, 56 Ill. 13......
-
Randall v. Bd. of Com'rs of Tippecanoe Cnty., 10623.
...may be maintained and damages recovered as compensation. See, also, City of Pekin v. Brereton, 67 Ill. 477, 16 Am. Rep. 629;City of Pekin v. Winkel, 77 Ill. 56;City of Elgin v. Eaton, 83 Ill. 535, 25 Am. Rep. 412;Stack v. City of East St. Louis, 85 Ill. 377, 28 Am. Rep. 619. In the case of ......