The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1869-06-02
sugreMe-NouFt eeIsi6n q


At the nequi'S 1sf some Of fhepafties
interested. and because the case has
been regarded With a. good deal of
interest BY a large number of our
rSsae4ag e-e briat tl9t following de-
cisiou Of the Supreme. Court: s,g,
In The ease 81 eklien O. .HsIioolZ ct al, vs..
Asa IL eheart ct al, appeal from the
Nanderburgh Common Pleas Court.
Came the parties by their attorneys,
and the Court being sufficiently ad
vised in the premises, gave the follow
ing,9pinion4ha judgment RroHQunced
BY Frazer, An -eA
Ths, Wss-a suit by attsrpeys tore
cover TIC v81ue OF professional ser
yiosss They bad .gdggeptbe below for
9IAgpofli0n of tho aoufth para graph
Of the answer was stricken out, on
motion, and tiIis' is assigned for error.
Bat the matter stricken out was q
mere repetition of an aveTment which
remained 10 the same paragraph, as
well as q the second, and under which
the facts were all admissible in evi-
lence, If proper to be proved at all.
N o such evidence was, however. offer
ed, and there was therefore neither
lcrror III form nor injury to the appel
ANTS in striking 10 out.
1tis urged that the Court below
erred inrefusingy 70 instruct the jury
as requested by the appellants, but
mas much as this refusal was not made
oae Of grounds a motion for a
new trial below, the question cannot
| be considered here.
.TheEde ia0ssL wa unskilifulnessA and
want Of care by the plaintiffs In per-
| forming the business, whereby the de-
| fendauts weHei damaged, a&o. There
was no evidence given to the jury
tending to prove this defense, aud
therefore, was not required that any
instructions as to the liability of an
attorney for negligence or want 6of
care should have been given Nor
could any error in instructions upon
THAI sdbjept Rave Injured the defend
ants. Without any evidence upon
he questioR5tiYas not the. duty Of the
| jury to seQEsiCter. -iff and the Court
might with propriety have @ instruct
ed. We DO not, puder such clrcum-
stances, feel called upon to discuss
the instructions which were riven, re-
| gsrdinE the questions which are made
upon them as being entirely abstract,
and having no influence upon the case
presented by therecOrd aia< alit u
An Instruction Pertinent to the
evidence Is complained OF, though il
Is admitted to be- correct statement
OF the law It is objected to it that
though expressed in fit language to be
comprehended by a lawyer yet it
| should hare been so explained that
the jury would surely understand it.
| Ifthis were conceded, yet we could
not reverse the case unless. the expfa-
nation had been asked. and refused.
! Fibs4iy, 10 Is urgedthat the damages
! assessed were excessive. The eVi
dence would, on appeal, have SUPPORT
| ed u larger verdict.
| Judgment affirmed, with three per
! cent dam8Egs, and costs. sbtl p ~
IL is, therefore, considered by the
| eplrtthat the judgmeBt of the Court
below IN the above entitled cause, be
in all things affirmed at the costs Of
the Appellants, with three per cent.
damases thereon; all of which is or
| dered 20 be certified t01said Court.
And it is further considered By the
| Court, that the appellees recover OF
the appellapts che sumof0one hun
| dred and twenty dollars for their
damages aforesaid, and the further
| sum '0f ---- --- dollars and---r7--
cents los their costs aud charges in
this behalf exbended.. 9 a a5i
i TUu ggNNRE OE gaVETV AEEJpE