Fieldstack v. Chicago City Railway Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Fieldstack v. Chicago City Railway Co.

184 Ill. App. 75, 1913 Ill. App. LEXIS 75

Appellate Court of Illinois·Decided December 22, 1913·No. Gen. No. 18,284·Published

Opinion

Mr. Justice Brown

delivered the opinion of the court.

5. Instructions, § 48*—when instruction on weight of testimony not erroneous. Instruction relating to the weight of testimony containing the expression “it is the duty of the jury to receive the testimony of such witness,” held not objectionable because the word “receive” means “admit as true.” 6. Instructions, § 82*—when not improper as mentioning the name of a witness. Fact that plaintiff’s name is introduced in an instruction as to the weight of the testimony, held not objectionable where plaintiff’s name is not mentioned as a witness.

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

Mr. Justice Brown

delivered the opinion of the court.

5. Instructions, § 48*—when instruction on weight of testimony not erroneous. Instruction relating to the weight of testimony containing the expression “it is the duty of the jury to receive the testimony of such witness,” held not objectionable because the word “receive” means “admit as true.” 6. Instructions, § 82*—when not improper as mentioning the name of a witness. Fact that plaintiff’s name is introduced in an instruction as to the weight of the testimony, held not objectionable where plaintiff’s name is not mentioned as a witness.

Fieldstack v. Chicago City Railway Co., 184 Ill. App. 75, 1913 Ill. App. LEXIS 75 (Ill. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

184 Ill. App. 75 (Fieldstack v. Chicago City Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.