Woodman v. Howell

• Decision Date: 30 September 1867
• Parties: CLARK WOODMANv.JOHN C. HOWELL.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

45 Ill. 367

1867 WL 5291 (Ill.)

92 Am.Dec. 221

CLARK WOODMAN

v.JOHN C. HOWELL.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1867.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. ERASTUS S. WILLIAMS, Judge, presiding.

This was an action of trespass vi et armis, brought by the appellee against the appellant, for an assault and battery. The case was tried in the Circuit Court of Cook county, at the October Term, A. D. 1866, and resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $300. A motion for a new trial was overruled and judgment rendered upon the verdict. The case was brought to this court by appeal.

The facts in the case are fully stated in the opinion.

Messrs. FULLER & SHEPARD, for the appellant.

Mr. E. W. EVANS, for the appellee. Mr. JUSTICE WALKER delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an action of trespass vi et armis, for an assault and battery. A trial was had at the October Term, 1866, by the court and a jury, resulting in a verdict of guilty, and the damages were assessed at $300. A motion for a new trial was entered, and was overruled by the court, and judgment rendered on the verdict. The case is brought to this court by appeal to reverse the judgment.

It appears from the evidence, that appellee was employed by several commission merchants to be at the elevator on the arrival of grain consigned to them, to ascertain the inspection fixed on each car load; to take samples, and furnish his employers therewith earlier than such information could be had in the regular course of business. It also appears that appellee got his information in reference to inspection by being present when the inspection was made, or from the inspector's books, who by permission of the owners, left his books, in which inspections were made, in the office in question. And it further appears, that appellee had gone into the office at the time the difficulty occurred, for the purpose of examining the inspector's books as to the character of grain which had arrived, consigned to his employers. Appellant asked him if he had any business to transact with those having charge of the office. He replied that he did not know that he had. Appellant then told him if he had not he had better leave, as he did not want him there; he ordered him out, and said if he did not go he would put him out. Appellee replied that he did not think he would; that he would go when he was ready. Appellant opened the door, and caught appellee by the collar, and pushed him out. It seems that appellee resisted. Austin swears that appellee caught hold of appellant, and would not let him close the door; that appellant tried to push appellee down the steps, but he held to the railing; that no person connected with that office has any thing to do with the grain, or knows any thing about who owns it; that the inspectors inspect the grain in the yard in the cars, and enter the inspection in their memorandum books; that they were permitted to go into that office as a matter of courtesy, and not as a right, and had no connection with the business of the office. It appears that appellee, since that time, gets the information as usual, without going into the office.

Odell, a member of the firm of Flint, Thompson & Co., testified that appellant was at the time their foreman. That the office where this trouble occurred was theirs; that they had an office at the elevator for the use of the foreman and his clerk, to receive orders drawn on the elevator; that all of their employees had access to it and the right of access; that tally books and shipping receipts are kept there, but nothing relating to the inspection of grain that they had any thing to do with; that they had permitted the board of trade inspectors to use that room, as they might require, to figure up their books, but no other persons were permitted there; that appellee was not an inspector when put out; that Flint, Thompson & Co., had given directions to the foreman to exclude all persons who had no business with the firm, except the inspectors; that these instructions were given before the difficulty occurred.

We are aware of no rule of law that gives any person, not having a special irrevocable license, the right to enter and continue upon the premises of another when requested to...