Skip to main content
· 1/22/1891

Chicago City Railway Co. v. Hastings

Citations

  • 136 Ill. 251
  • 26 N.E. 594

Syllabus

<p>1. Evidence'—to impeach correctness of one’s own affidavit. In an action for personal injury through the alleged negligence of the .defendant, the latter read an affidavit obtained by its agent of the plaintiff, showing that the latter was injured through his own negligence. The plaintiff was called in rebuttal, and was allowed, over defendant’s objection, to testify that his statements were not correctly embodied in the paper, and it was not properly read to him, and that he signed the same without reading it, under the belief that it was correct: Held, that his testimony was properly admitted, as tending to impeach the correctness of the affidavit.</p> <p>2. Instructions—foundation in the pleadings and evidence. In an action for a personal injury the court instructed the jury, that in estimating the damages they might consider the plaintiff’s loss of time, so far as shown by the evidence. The declaration showed that the plaintiff’s left thigh was dislocated and fractured, and that he was otherwise injured, but did not state how long he was unable to do business, and the evidence showed the extent and character of the injury, but failed to show the number of days he was disabled and unable to pursue his usual business: Held, that the allegation of the injury, and the evidence, were sufficient to justify the instruction.</p> <p>3. And where the declaration shows a ground of action arising from the negligence of the defendant, a direction to the jury, in the charge of the court, that “if you find the defendant guilty as charged,” will not be erroneous.</p> <p>4. Same—error cured in the same instruction. In one part of an instruction the court informed the jury that an affidavit of the plaintiff was introduced for the purpose of impeaching him, when, in fact, it was offered as an admission of his own negligence. This was held improper. But the error was cured by the concluding part of the charge, in which the jury were directed, in plain words, that if they believe

Judges: Craig

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.