Henning v. Probst

Appellate Court of Illinois

Henning v. Probst

66 Ill. App. 159, 1896 Ill. App. LEXIS 651

DecidedJuly 30, 1896

StatusPublished

This text of 66 Ill. App. 159 (Henning v. Probst) 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

Henning v. Probst, 66 Ill. App. 159, 1896 Ill. App. LEXIS 651 (Ill. Ct. App. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of appellee for $863.75, recovered against appellant in an action of trespass vi et a/rmis.

There was a conflict in the testimony as to the manner in which the assault was made, as to the provocation and as to the extent of violence used; but there is no question as to the defendant making the assault, and that such assault was without sufficient provocation.

There is some question as to the accuracy of the plaintiff’s third instruction, but we do not regard it as material. Nor for the giving of that would we feel justified in reversing the judgment. There was no error committed in refusing instructions.

We think the damages allowed by the jury excessive, but as appellee has entered a remittitur for $400 we affirm the judgment for $463.73, and direct the clerk' to tax against appellee the costs of this court.

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

Opinion per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of appellee for $863.75, recovered against appellant in an action of trespass vi et a/rmis.

There was a conflict in the testimony as to the manner in which the assault was made, as to the provocation and as to the extent of violence used; but there is no question as to the defendant making the assault, and that such assault was without sufficient provocation.

There is some question as to the accuracy of the plaintiff’s third instruction, but we do not regard it as material. Nor for the giving of that would we feel justified in reversing the judgment. There was no error committed in refusing instructions.

We think the damages allowed by the jury excessive, but as appellee has entered a remittitur for $400 we affirm the judgment for $463.73, and direct the clerk' to tax against appellee the costs of this court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 Ill. App. 159, 1896 Ill. App. LEXIS 651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henning-v-probst-illappct-1896.