Smith v. Wise, Stigleman & Co.

Citations

• 58 Ill. 141

Syllabus

<p>1. Practice—jury talcing papers introduced in evidence, with them on their retirement. A paper introduced in evidence on the trial of a cause, purporting to be the admission or statement of what the plaintiff would have testified if before the jury, was held to be equivalent to the deposition of such party, and could not properly be taken by the jury in their retirement.</p> <p>3, Same—time of mailing the objection. Where it appeared the attorney in a cause, who made an affidavit of the fact that a paper given in evidence was improperly taken by the jury on their retirement, was present, and knew the fact at the time, it was held, he should then have brought the subject to the attention of the court by objecting; it was too late to urge the objection for the first time, on error.</p> <p>3. Landlord and tenant—eviction of the latter by the former, from, a part of the pi-emises. The principle upon which a tenant is required to pay rent, is the beneficial enjoyment of the premises, unmolested by the landlord.</p> <p>4 So if the landlord shall take possession of any part of the demised premises without the consent of the tenant, that will constitute, in law, an eviction of the tenant, which will operate to release him from any further liability to pay rent, even for such portion of the premises of which he may still continue in the undisturbed occupancy.</p>