Case ID: ill-app_210/html/0097-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Thomson", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

A. Anderson Decorating Company, Appellee, v. Nels Gross, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 23,254.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Appeal and eebob, § 1414
      
      —when finding of trial court not disturbed. Where the testimony on a trial before the court without a jury was sharply conflicting, and much depended on the manner in which the witnesses testified, their appearance on the stand, and such kindred matters as the trial court was in best position to observe but which could not be shown by the record, held that it would not be reasonable for the court of review to say the trial judge was not warranted in his finding.
    
      Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Dennis W. Sullivan, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1917.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed March 13, 1918.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by A. Anderson Decorating Company, a corporation, plaintiff, against Neis Gross, defendant, to recover for services rendered and materials furnished in decorating an apartment in a building owned by defendant. From a judgment for plaintiff for $265.70, on trial by the court without a jury, defendant appeals.
    Walter H. Eckert, for appellant.
    . Beach & Beach, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vola. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Thomson

delivered the opinion of the iourt.

2. Evidence, § 73 —what is not proper rebuttal testimony. Certain photographs offered by defendant as demonstrating and illustrating certain claimed defects in plaintiff’s work were properly excluded in rebuttal to plaintiff’s rebuttal which had brought no new matter into the case but had merely denied the existence of each and every defect testified to by defendant and defendant’s witnesses, in an action to recover for services rendered and materials furnished.