Toledo, Wabash & Western Railway Co. v. Williams

Citations

• 77 Ill. 354

Syllabus

<p>1. Abatement—waiver of objection that suit is brought in wrong county. Where a defendant is alleged to have been improperly sued in a foreign county,-the objection must be taken in apt time, or it will be regarded as waived. It is too late to urge it after judgment. Section 3oft.be Prnclice act of 1873 must receive the same construction given lo a similar provision in the Revised Statutes of 1845.</p> <p>3. Pleading and evidence—matter of surplusage need not be proved. In an action against a railway company, to recover damages for an as-' sault and battery by one of its servants,'it is not necessary to state the name of such servant, and, if stated, the name may be regarded as surplusage, and need not be proved as alleged.</p> <p>3. Railroads—regulation for the protection of ladies at depot. Where several railway companies have provided in their depot building, in a large city, separate waiting rooms for ladies and gentlemen, a regulation that no gentleman without a lady shall be allowed to enter and remain in the ladies’ room, is not only reasonable, but absolutely necessary to enable the companies to discharge a duty they owe the public, of protecting females, while at the depot, from violence and insult.</p> <p>4. Same — not liable for enforcing reasonable rules. Where a man, without any lad)', went into the ladies’ waiting room of a union depot in a city, there being a different room provided for gentlemen, and, about dusk, went into the “ladies’ private room,” and, when ordered out by a servant of one of the companies using the depot, refused to go, and was then taken by the collar and put out upon the platform, he receiving no personal injuries, and his clothes not being torn: Held, in an action on the case for the acts of such servant, against the railway company, that the plaintiff, under the circumstances, was not entitled to recover.</p> <p>5. Evidence—cross-examination of witness. A wide latitude is allowed in the cross-examination of a witness, but he