Case ID: ill-app_63/html/0400-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Waterman", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

B. A. L. Thompson v. John Jana.
    1. Verdict—On Conflicting Evidence.—-A. verdict upon conflicting evidence is conclusive.
    Replevin.—Appeal from the County Court of Cook County; the Hon. Orrin H. Carter, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at March term, 1896.
    Afñrmed.
    Opinion filed April 13, 1896.
    Statement of the Case.
    An action of replevin was brought by Thompson against Jana, before a justice of the peace, October 27, 1893, for a horse. The return of the officer shows that the property was not taken on the replevin writ. Plaintiff then declared in trover, and judgment in trover for §125 and costs was rendered by the justice; the defendant appealed to the County Court.
    A trial was had in the County Court, and a verdict of guilty rendered, the plaintiff’s damages being assessed at $136.43. On motion of the defendant a new trial was granted. A second trial was had in the County Court, resulting in a verdict of not guilty. A motion for a new trial was overruled, and judgment was entered on that verdict for the defendant. This appeal is prosecuted by the plaintiff.
    Frederick W. Packard, attorney for appellant.
    J. F. Kohout, attorney for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Waterman

delivered the opinion op the Court.

Under the contradictory evidence in this case the jury might have, by inference, found that the carriage horse 61 Gray Ben,” “ about seven years old, weight 1,160 pounds,” mortgaged by Emmet C. Gibson, was the horse delivered by the horse-shoer, Connelly, to the defendant Jana; but as the jury did not so find, we are unable, upon this record, to reverse the conclusion of the court below, that the plaintiff did not make out his claim to the right of possession of the horse in the custody of the defendant.

There was only evidence by inference as to the identity of the animal.

The judgment of the County Court is affirmed.