Perry County IL Archives Court.....Young, V Silkwood 1849
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarch.org/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarch.org/il/ilfiles.htm
************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Deb Haines http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00003.html#0000719 May 22, 2008, 8:12 am

Source: Reports Of Cases Illinois
Written: 1849

George Young v. Elam Silkwood.

Appeal from Perry.

1. Verdict — seldom disturbed, if on circumstances. In actions for trespass 
where the testimony is often and perhaps usually circumstantial, the court 
will rarely, if ever, disturb a verdict, when there is any thing in the record 
tending to support the finding of the jury.(l)

This was an action of trespass for shooting a horse, brought by Silkwood 
against Young, before a justice of the peace, where plaintiff had judgment for 
$45 00. From this judgment Young appealed to the circuit court. The trial in 
the circuit court came on before Underwood, judge, and a jury, at the April 
term, 1849. Verdict and judgment for Silkwood, for the same sum. Motion for 
new trial was denied, and Young took an appeal to the supreme court.

W. Edwards, for appellant. C. L. Starbuck, for appellee.

Trumbull, J. The only question in this case is, whether the circuit court 
erred in refusing to set aside the verdict of the jury as contrary to evidence.

The action is trespass for shooting a horse, and presents questions peculiarly 
proper for the consideration of a jury. 
That the animal was injured is unquestioned, and the only point of dispute is, 
whether the appellant committed the injury. The fact of his previous threats, 
that he had a gun, that the horse was seen in his field, and a gun heard in 
that direction, shortly before the injury was inflicted, and that tracks and 
blood were afterwards discovered in the field, are circumstances from which 
the jury may well have inferred that appellant committed the injury.

In a case of this kind, where the testimony is often and perhaps usually 
circumstantial, the court will rarely, if ever, disturb a verdict, when there 
is any thing in the record tending to support the finding of the jury.

Judgment affirmed.

---------------
Cited — Eason v. Chapman, 21 Ill., 33; Elam v. Badger, 23 Ill., 498. 

(1) As to when verdict should be set aside, as not sustained by evidence, see 
Keaggy v. Hite, 12 Ill., 99 and note.

Additional Comments:
Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of the State of 
Illinois, from November Term, 1849, to June Term, 1850, Both Inclusive. By 
Ebenezer Peck. Volume XI. Annotated by Henry Binmore, of the Chicago Bar. 
CHICAGO: CALLAGHAN & CO. 1886.

File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/il/perry/court/young78gwl.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/ilfiles/

File size: 2.9 Kb