The Ottawa Gas Light v. James Graham.

• Decision Date: 30 April 1864
• Citation: The Ottawa Gas Light v. James Graham., 35 Ill. 346, 1864 WL 3057 (Ill. 1864)
• Parties: THE OTTAWA GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANYv.JAMES GRAHAM.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

35 Ill. 346

1864 WL 3057 (Ill.)

THE OTTAWA GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY

v.JAMES GRAHAM.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April Term, 1864.

APPEAL from Circuit Court of Bureau county.

Case brought by appellee against appellant for the recovery of damages caused by the erection and operation of gas works by defendant near plaintiff's dwelling house, whereby the air around plaintiff's dwelling and the water in his well upon the premises were rendered offensive and corrupt.

On the trial the court, against defendant's objection, permitted witnesses to give their opinion as to the amount of damages sustained by the plaintiff, in reply to the following question. “Give your views of the damage done to Graham's premises on account of the gas works?” The other questions raised in the cause are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

The verdict and judgment in the circuit court were for the plaintiff.

Rice, Morey and Hollister, for appellant.Leland and Blanchard, for appellee.

WALKER, C. J.

The bill of exceptions in this record fails to state that it contains all of the evidence given on the trial below. This being so, this court will not undertake to determine whether the evidence warrants the finding of the jury. If the testimony contained in the record is not sufficient to justify the finding, it will be presumed that there was other evidence that has been omitted which warranted the verdict, or the court would have granted a new trial. In that, as in all things else, it must be presumed that the proceedings and judgment of a superior court are strictly in conformity to law, until error is shown in the record. The appellant, having failed in this case to show that the court below erred in refusing to grant a new trial, because the evidence did not warrant the verdict, the presumption has not been overcome. This is the long, uniform and well settled doctrine of this court, announced in numerous decisions too familiar to the profession to require citation.

It is however, contended, that inasmuch as counsel for appellee made upon the bill of exceptions this indorsement: “I am satisfied with the foregoing bill of exceptions,” to which he signed his name, the omission was cured, and we must infer from the indorsement that it was full and correct. This we think is not its import, nor will it bear such a construction. It only implies that the attorney desired no corrections made either by erasure or addition. That upon it as it then stood, he was willing...