Bachman v. Friedman

Appellate Court of Illinois

Bachman v. Friedman

50 Ill. App. 261, 1893 Ill. App. LEXIS 405

DecidedMarch 18, 1893

StatusPublished

This text of 50 Ill. App. 261 (Bachman v. Friedman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bachman v. Friedman, 50 Ill. App. 261, 1893 Ill. App. LEXIS 405 (Ill. Ct. App. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion oe the Court,

Waterman, J.

This was an action for an assault and battery alleged to have been committed by William Bachman upon Meyer Friedman.

The evidence disclosed that out of one of those unfortunate and inexcusable quarrels which sometimes arise between neighbors, an affray had taken place in which Mr. Friedman, an old man, was beaten.

We do not think that Friedman was free from blame; he made use of insulting and vulgar language. Bachman, instead of going away, deliberately came back, renewed the quarrel, and struck this foolish, insulting and, perhaps, intoxicated old man. " The damages assessed, $600, are in our view, under the circumstances, large — greater than we think ought to have been allowed—but, if disposed to do so, we could not set aside the judgment for that reason.

No motion for a new trial is shown in the bill of exceptions. A motion for a new trial is not a part of the record, and does not become so by its being copied by the clerk as a part of the proceedings in the cause. Foreman v. Johnson, 40 Ill. App. 456; Gill v. The People, 42 Ill. 521; Graham v. The People, 115 Ill. 566, 569; James v. Dexter, 113 Ill. 654; Martin v. Foulke, 114 Ill. 206; Obermark v. The People, 24 Ill. App. 259; C. & N. W. R. R. Co. v. Benham, 25 Ill. App. 248; Shedd v. Dalzell, 30 Ill. App. 356; Daniels v. Shields, 38 Ill. 197; Cline v. Toledo, St. Louis & Kansas City Ry. Co., 41 Ill. App. 516; Firemen’s Ins. Co. v. Peck, 126 Ill. 493.

A judgment will not be overturned upon the ground that the evidence was not sufficient to warrant the verdict, unless a motion for a new trial was made, specifying such ground. Reichwald v. Gaylord et al., 73 Ill. 503; Ottawa, Oswego & Fox River Valley Ry. Co. v. McMath, 91 Ill. 104; Emory v. Addis, 71 Ill. 277; Jones v. Jones, 71 Ill. 562; Daniels v. Shields, 38 Ill. 197; McClurkin v. Ewing, 42 Ill. 283; Alley v. Lunbert, 35 Ill. App. 593.

The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion oe the Court,

Waterman, J.

This was an action for an assault and battery alleged to have been committed by William Bachman upon Meyer Friedman.

The evidence disclosed that out of one of those unfortunate and inexcusable quarrels which sometimes arise between neighbors, an affray had taken place in which Mr. Friedman, an old man, was beaten.

We do not think that Friedman was free from blame; he made use of insulting and vulgar language. Bachman, instead of going away, deliberately came back, renewed the quarrel, and struck this foolish, insulting and, perhaps, intoxicated old man. " The damages assessed, $600, are in our view, under the circumstances, large — greater than we think ought to have been allowed—but, if disposed to do so, we could not set aside the judgment for that reason.

No motion for a new trial is shown in the bill of exceptions. A motion for a new trial is not a part of the record, and does not become so by its being copied by the clerk as a part of the proceedings in the cause. Foreman v. Johnson, 40 Ill. App. 456; Gill v. The People, 42 Ill. 521; Graham v. The People, 115 Ill. 566, 569; James v. Dexter, 113 Ill. 654; Martin v. Foulke, 114 Ill. 206; Obermark v. The People, 24 Ill. App. 259; C. & N. W. R. R. Co. v. Benham, 25 Ill. App. 248; Shedd v. Dalzell, 30 Ill. App. 356; Daniels v. Shields, 38 Ill. 197; Cline v. Toledo, St. Louis & Kansas City Ry. Co., 41 Ill. App. 516; Firemen’s Ins. Co. v. Peck, 126 Ill. 493.

A judgment will not be overturned upon the ground that the evidence was not sufficient to warrant the verdict, unless a motion for a new trial was made, specifying such ground. Reichwald v. Gaylord et al., 73 Ill. 503; Ottawa, Oswego & Fox River Valley Ry. Co. v. McMath, 91 Ill. 104; Emory v. Addis, 71 Ill. 277; Jones v. Jones, 71 Ill. 562; Daniels v. Shields, 38 Ill. 197; McClurkin v. Ewing, 42 Ill. 283; Alley v. Lunbert, 35 Ill. App. 593.

The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 Ill. App. 261, 1893 Ill. App. LEXIS 405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bachman-v-friedman-illappct-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack