Rose v. Chicago City Railway Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Rose v. Chicago City Railway Co.

199 Ill. App. 600

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Rose v. Chicago City Railway Co.. Read the opinion of the Court — 207 Ill. App. 345 →

Appellate Court of Illinois·Decided June 19, 1916·No. Gen. No. 21,364·Published

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Pam

delivered tffe opinion of the court.

3. Witnesses, § 311*—when testimony of interested witness will not he accepted. The testimony of an interested witness as to facts inherently unprobable need not be accepted by a court or jury, although such testimony is not contradicted by other direct testimony in the case, and although the witness is not otherwise impeached. 4. Trial, § 125*—right of counsel to state to fury their views as to the law. .Counsel may properly state to the jury what they believe to be the law and base arguments thereupon.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Pam

delivered tffe opinion of the court.

3. Witnesses, § 311*—when testimony of interested witness will not he accepted. The testimony of an interested witness as to facts inherently unprobable need not be accepted by a court or jury, although such testimony is not contradicted by other direct testimony in the case, and although the witness is not otherwise impeached. 4. Trial, § 125*—right of counsel to state to fury their views as to the law. .Counsel may properly state to the jury what they believe to be the law and base arguments thereupon.

Rose v. Chicago City Railway Co., 199 Ill. App. 600 (Ill. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

199 Ill. App. 600 (Rose v. Chicago City Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.