Beeler v. Webb

Citations

• 113 Ill. 436
• 1885 Ill. LEXIS 713

Syllabus

<p>1. Evidence—admissions by one pf several defendants—against whom to be received. In an action on the case against two for enticing away the wife of the plaintiff, the declarations and conversations of the defendant with whom the wife eloped, during his absence with her, before proof of any conspiracy between the defendants, and his declarations after his return and after the conspiracy was consummated, were admitted in evidence on behalf of the plaintiff, the court, however, limiting it in its effect to the person who made the declarations. On objection by his co-defendant, it was considered that the matters proven did not at all affect him, and evidence concerning the declarations was certainly admissible against the one who made them.</p> <p>2. Same— of the sufficiency of an interrogatory as ground for exception that evidence concerning a particular matter had been excluded. In an action by a husband against parties for enticing Ms wife to elope with one of them, counsel for the defendants asked a witness: “I will ask you if she (the wife) was living there (at her father’s) at the time they made a wedding feast and W. (the plaintiff) failed to appear:” Held, that the question would not support an exception of the exclusion of evidence to show preparations had been made for a wedding, and that the wedding had been appointed to take place at several times, and that the plaintiff disappointed his intended wife by failing to appear. There should have been direct inquiry as to those facts, in order to found an exception to the exclusion of a question concerning them.</p> <p>3. Appeal— question of excessive damages—whether cognisable in the Supreme Court. Where the Appellate Court fails to reverse a judgment in an action sounding in tort, on the ground that the damages are excessive, the question of the excessiveness of the damages can not be considered in tMs court.</p>