Olsen v. Upsahl

Citations

• 69 Ill. 273

Syllabus

<p>1. Trespass—those abetting liable as principal actors. There are no accessories in trespass, but all who are concerned with the trespass in any manner are principals. The person who commands, or stands by and approves, is guilty in like manner with the one who does the act.</p> <p>2. In trespass growing out of the service of a writ of restitution in a forcible detainer case, by an officer, the defendant, who was the plaintiff in the writ, and who was sued alone for the officer’s act, asked an instruction that, if the trespass was committed by other individuals than the defendant, the jury should find for the defendant, unless she aided and abetted in the commission of the trespass. To this the court added: “or authorized the constable to take possession of the house by moving the plaintiff and her goods, or, with a knowledge thereof, approved the same Held, that the instruction, as asked, did not properly lay down the law, and that the modification was proper.</p> <p>3. In the same case; the defendant asked the court to instruct the jury that, unless they believed, from the evidence, that the defendant was guilty of having committed the trespasses named in the declaration, they should find for the defendant, which was refused: Reid, that it was rightfully refused, being calculated to mislead the jury, as it was not claimed the defendant committed the trespass in person.</p> <p>4. Instruction—assuming facts. An instruction should not assume the existence of certain facts, but should inform the jury what the law is,</p> <p>■ applicable to the case.</p> <p>5. Trespass—matter of justification must be specially pleaded. The rule is well settled that., in actions of tort, matters in discharge or justification of the action must be specially pleaded.</p> <p>6. In trespass, under the general issue, the defendant cannot justify the act complained of, under legal process, the only issue presented being, whether the defendant is guilty of the trespass.</p>