Ottawa Gas-Light & Coke Co. v. Graham

Citations

• 35 Ill. 346

Syllabus

<p>1. Bill op exceptions — must state that it contains all the evidence. Where the bill of exceptions fails to state that it contains all the evidence given on the trial below, this court cannot undertake to determine whether the evidence warranted the finding of the jury. If the testimony contained in the record is not sufficient to justify the finding, it will be presumed that there was other evidence that has been omitted, which warranted the verdict, or the court would have granted a new trial</p> <p>2. Sake. An indorsement “I am satisfied with the foregoing bill of exceptions,” made upon the bill by the attorney for the appellee, will not remove the objection, that the bill docs not state that it contains all the evidence.</p> <p>3. Evidence. In an action on the case against a gas-light company for injury to the plaintiff’s well, it being claimed by the plaintiff that the gas passed through the earth to his well, and so affected the water as to make it useless, evidence that other wells in the neighborhood were similarly affected, held to be proper, as it tended to show that the water in the plaintiff's well was affected in the manner claimed.</p> <p>4. Evidence—opinion of witnesses. A witness was asked to give his views of the damage done to the plaintiff’s premises on account of the gas works. Seld, that the evidence was proper, the witness having examined the premises with reference to the damage done by the escaping gas.</p>