The Ottawa Gas Light v. Graham

• Decision Date: 30 April 1862
• Parties: THE OTTAWA GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY, Appellant,v.JAMES GRAHAM, Appellee.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

28 Ill. 73
1862 WL 3265 (Ill.)
81 Am.Dec. 263
18 Peck (IL) 73

THE OTTAWA GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY, Appellant,
v.
JAMES GRAHAM, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April Term, 1862.

APPEAL FROM LASALLE.

In an action on the case for injury to property, and especially to a well by rendering the water impure, all the circumstances may be proved and considered; and to ascertain the damages, the cost of furnishing water to the family, having regard to quality and quantity, may be taken into the account in the estimate--also, the difference in value of the property, owing to the erection of gas or other offensive structures in its vicinity.

Jurors may be instructed to weigh evidence by the light of their general knowledge and experience as applied to the events and transactions of life, but it is erroneous to instruct them to apply special knowledge or circumstances connected with the case in forming their verdict; unless the jurors shall have been sworn as witnesses.

THIS was an action on the case brought by the plaintiff below against the defendant below for injury to the water of plaintiff's well, occasioned by defendant having “suffered to flow from its gas works, and to be placed in and around and near the same, certain noxious and offensive substances and materials used in and about the manufacture of gas and coke, and also certain oily, tarry, resinous, gaseous, and deleterious substances and materials so used in said manufacture, which said substances and materials were absorbed by and entered into the earth, and permeated, passed and flowed along and through the earth and into said well of water of said plaintiff, and mingling with the water with which said well was supplied, spoiled the water of said well.”

The plaintiff also complained, in his declaration, of certain smells, smokes, etc., caused by the manufacture of gas, etc.

The defendant pleaded the general issue, and a special plea denying that defendant suffered to flow from its gas works and to be deposited on and around the same, certain noxious, tarry, resinous, gaseous substances, and that said substances permeated through the ground into plaintiff's well.

The court instructed the jury, on behalf of the plaintiff, as follows:

1. If the jury believe, from the evidence, that the defendant

[28 Ill. 74]

erected, or caused to be erected, near the dwelling-house of the plaintiff, situated on lot 3, block 84, in State's addition to the city of Ottawa, works for the manufacture of gas and coke, and that in carrying on such business by defendant, the air was rendered impure, noxious or disagreeable to plaintiff; and that the plaintiff had on said lot a well of water, and that the defendant placed, or caused to be placed, in and around said works, substances used in or produced by the manufacture of gas and coke, which, when mingled with the water in plaintiff's well, rendered it nauseous to the taste or otherwise unfit for use; and if said substances, so used or produced, did soak into the ground, and permeate and pass along and through the earth, and mingle with the water of said well, and...