Pico v. Chicago Railways Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Pico v. Chicago Railways Co.

203 Ill. App. 293, 1917 Ill. App. LEXIS 215

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedJanuary 22, 1917

DocketGen. No. 22,640

StatusPublished

This text of 203 Ill. App. 293 (Pico 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

Pico v. Chicago Railways Co., 203 Ill. App. 293, 1917 Ill. App. LEXIS 215 (Ill. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Appeal and error, § 1303*-^-to7¡,ero presumed that evidence disclosed by photograph not, incorporated in bill of exceptions was sufficient to satisfy jury. Where a photograph was introduced in evidence and considered by the jury hut was not incorporated in the bill of exceptions, the evidence is assumed to have been sufficient to satisfy the jury as to the matters shown thereby. 4. Trial, § 54*—when denial of motion to withdraw juror and continue case because of alleged improper conduct of juror is not error. Where a juror was accused of improper conduct but denied same under oath unequivocally and the court, after considering affidavits by the parties- concerned, denied a motion to withdraw a juror and continue the case, held that there was no error in such denial.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Appeal and error, § 1303*-^-to7¡,ero presumed that evidence disclosed by photograph not, incorporated in bill of exceptions was sufficient to satisfy jury. Where a photograph was introduced in evidence and considered by the jury hut was not incorporated in the bill of exceptions, the evidence is assumed to have been sufficient to satisfy the jury as to the matters shown thereby. 4. Trial, § 54*—when denial of motion to withdraw juror and continue case because of alleged improper conduct of juror is not error. Where a juror was accused of improper conduct but denied same under oath unequivocally and the court, after considering affidavits by the parties- concerned, denied a motion to withdraw a juror and continue the case, held that there was no error in such denial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 Ill. App. 293, 1917 Ill. App. LEXIS 215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pico-v-chicago-railways-co-illappct-1917.