Illinois Central Railroad v. Herr

Citations

• 54 Ill. 356

Syllabus

<p>1. Parties—in gui twm action against a railroad company—construction of act of 1869. Under the act of 1869, which provides that one-half the penalty to be recovered against a railroad company for an omission to ring the bell or sound the whistle on the approach of a train to a crossing of a public highway, shall go to the “ prosecuting witness,” it is not essential, to entitle the person in whose name the suit is brought, to recover, that he should actually have testified in the case.</p> <p>2. So where, in such a case, there were no witnesses examined, but the case was tried upon an agreed state of facts, the person in whose name the suit was brought was regarded as the prosecutor, and being competent to testify, was the prosecuting witness, within the meaning of the act, and as such entitled to maintain the suit.</p> <p>3. Judsmemt—of its form, in such case. The act referred to provides that one-half the penalty in such case shall go to the prosecuting witness “ and the other half to go to the State: ” Held, the judgment for the penalty, so far as it is to go to the State, is properly rendered in favor of “ the people of the State of Illinois,” and should not be entered, in terms, in favor, of “ the State.”</p>