Carey v. Chicago Railways Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Carey v. Chicago Railways Co.

188 Ill. App. 450

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedOctober 6, 1914

DocketGen. No. 19,729

StatusPublished

This text of 188 Ill. App. 450 (Carey v. Chicago Railways Co.) 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

Carey v. Chicago Railways Co., 188 Ill. App. 450 (Ill. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Mb. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Instructions, § 52*—use of mandatory words: Where an instruction is to direct the jury to find for the party that proves his case by a preponderance of the evidence, the direction should be mandatory by the use of the word “shall” or “should,” though the use of the word “will” will not be considered improperly employed. 3. Carriers, § 525*—when testimony improperly stricken out as hearsay evidence. In an action against a street railway company to recover for a malicious assault by defendant’s conductor in ejecting plaintiff from one of its cars, plaintiff swore that she gave the conductor a transfer and she was corroborated as to such fact by another passenger who also swore that she told the conductor before ejecting plaintiff that she had paid her fare, and plaintiff also testified as to what said passenger told the conductor but the court struck out the testimony as hearsay evidence, held that the court erred in striking out the testimony for the reason it tended to show what information the conductor had before ejecting plaintiff, and was material and direct evidence bearing on the question of malice and the character of his subsequent conduct.

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

Mb. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Instructions, § 52*—use of mandatory words: Where an instruction is to direct the jury to find for the party that proves his case by a preponderance of the evidence, the direction should be mandatory by the use of the word “shall” or “should,” though the use of the word “will” will not be considered improperly employed. 3. Carriers, § 525*—when testimony improperly stricken out as hearsay evidence. In an action against a street railway company to recover for a malicious assault by defendant’s conductor in ejecting plaintiff from one of its cars, plaintiff swore that she gave the conductor a transfer and she was corroborated as to such fact by another passenger who also swore that she told the conductor before ejecting plaintiff that she had paid her fare, and plaintiff also testified as to what said passenger told the conductor but the court struck out the testimony as hearsay evidence, held that the court erred in striking out the testimony for the reason it tended to show what information the conductor had before ejecting plaintiff, and was material and direct evidence bearing on the question of malice and the character of his subsequent conduct.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 Ill. App. 450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carey-v-chicago-railways-co-illappct-1914.