Bauchens v. Paulis

Appellate Court of Illinois

Bauchens v. Paulis

69 Ill. App. 202, 1896 Ill. App. LEXIS 321

DecidedMarch 3, 1897

StatusPublished

This text of 69 Ill. App. 202 (Bauchens v. Paulis) 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

Bauchens v. Paulis, 69 Ill. App. 202, 1896 Ill. App. LEXIS 321 (Ill. Ct. App. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr! 'Justice Green

delivered the opinion of the Court.

' Appellants were sued by appellee in trespass to recover from them damages for injuries to her person by them inflicted. The trial was had, the jury assessed plaintiff’s damages at $500; defendants’ motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were each overruled and judgment was entered against the defendants, as appears by the verdict and the record as corrected and now filed in this cause. Hence there is no ground for sustaining the objection of appellants that the judgment is against the defendant and not against the defendants.

The appellants also contend the evidence does not sustain the verdict. In this view we do hot concur. The evidence on behalf of the plaintiff was amply sufficient, if the jury believed the witnesses, to convict both defendants of an atrocious assault and battery causing serious bodily harm to plaintiff.

Ho good reason for reversing the judgment appears, and it is therefore affirmed.

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

Mr! 'Justice Green

delivered the opinion of the Court.

' Appellants were sued by appellee in trespass to recover from them damages for injuries to her person by them inflicted. The trial was had, the jury assessed plaintiff’s damages at $500; defendants’ motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were each overruled and judgment was entered against the defendants, as appears by the verdict and the record as corrected and now filed in this cause. Hence there is no ground for sustaining the objection of appellants that the judgment is against the defendant and not against the defendants.

The appellants also contend the evidence does not sustain the verdict. In this view we do hot concur. The evidence on behalf of the plaintiff was amply sufficient, if the jury believed the witnesses, to convict both defendants of an atrocious assault and battery causing serious bodily harm to plaintiff.

Ho good reason for reversing the judgment appears, and it is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 Ill. App. 202, 1896 Ill. App. LEXIS 321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bauchens-v-paulis-illappct-1897.