Case Name: Neil Moore, Appellee, v. P. H. Murphy, Appellant
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1913-10-09
Citations: 183 Ill. App. 499
Docket Number: 
Parties: Neil Moore, Appellee, v. P. H. Murphy, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 183
Pages: 499–500

Head Matter:
Neil Moore, Appellee, v. P. H. Murphy, Appellant.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Master and servant, § 701 —when evidence insufficient to sustain verdict for injury to operator of tin cutting machine. In an action for the loss of three fingers while operating a tin cutting machine for defendant, a verdict for plaintiff, held, manifestly against the weight of the evidence where it is not clear from the evidence whether the accident happened in the manner claimed by plaintiff and. the plaintiff is contradicted by two entirely disinterested witnesses.
Appeal from the City Court of Bast St. Louis; the Hon. W. -M. Vandeventer, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1913.
Reversed and remanded.
Opinion filed October 9, 1913.
Statement of the Case.
Action by Neil Moore, a minor, by William N. Moore, his next friend, against P. H. Murphy to recover for injuries sustained by plaintiff while operating a tin cutting machine for defendant. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff for two thousand dollars, defendant appeals.
Errors assigned by counsel were in substance: That the plaintiff assumed the risk; that the injury was occasioned by plaintiff’s own negligence; that the plaintiff operated the machine in direct violation of his instructions; that the judgment is not supported by the evidence; that remarks of plaintiff’s counsel to jury constitute reversible error.
Wise, Keefe & Wheeler, for appellant.
Kramer, Kramer & Campbell and C. H. G. Heinfelden, for appellee.
See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XIV, same topic and section number.

Opinion:
Mr. Presiding Justice McBride
delivered the opinion of the court.
2. Master and servant, § 825*—when remarles of counsel prejudicial. Remark by counsel in closing argument to the jury. "We are not asking you to put your hands in Mr. Murphy's pockets because he is a rich man and owns a big plant out here," held, prejudicial.
3. Trial, § 113*—when remarles of counsel improper. Statement of counsel explaining why his first declaration was prepared in the manner it was, held, improper.