Chicago, Pekin & Southwestern Railroad v. Town of Marseilles

Citations

• 107 Ill. 313
• 1883 Ill. LEXIS 264

Syllabus

<p>1. Practice—motion for new trial before a judge other them the one who tried the case. After the entry of judgment in a cause, but during the trial term, the unsuccessful party entered bis motion for a new trial, before a judge other than the one who presided at the trial of the case. No application was made for a continuance of the motion. It was held, the judge before whom the motion for a new trial was thus pending, although he had not presided on the trial of the cause, had rightful authority to deny the motion, and it was not error to do so.</p> <p>2. In such case, the party seeking the new trial, by making an application for a continuance of his motion, supported by a proper affidavit showing sufficient cause, might have had the mbtion for a new trial postponed to some day when it could be heard by the judge who tried the case. But a motion of this kind ought not to be postponed beyond the trial term, except for good cause shown.</p> <p>3. Bill oe exceptions— by whom to be signed, -where a motion for a new trial has been overruled by a judge other than the one who tried the case. Where a motion for a new trial is denied by a judge of the court other than the one who presided at the trial, and an appeal is granted, with leave to file bond and bill of exceptions within thirty days, the judge who tried the cause will be authorized to sign the bill of exceptions, and if none is tendered to him, it is the appellant’s own fault that he could not obtain the judgment of the Appellate Court'as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.</p> <p>4. The proper practice would seem to be, where two judges preside at different times during the trial, or other disposition of a cause, that each should give a bill of exceptions -concerning the matters which transpired before him.</p> <p>5. Same—when necessary—presumption in favor of judgment. In the absence of a bill of exceptions showing the evidence on the trial, it will be presumed that a motion for a new t