Case Name: The Board of Commissioners of Cook County v. William Harlev
Court: Illinois Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1898-10-24
Citations: 174 Ill. 412
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Board of Commissioners of Cook County v. William Harlev.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Reports
Volume: 174
Pages: 412–413

Head Matter:
The Board of Commissioners of Cook County v. William Harlev.
Opinion filed October 24, 1898.
Trial—order of admission of evidence rests solely ivith trial court. The order in which evidence shall he received is a matter resting wholly in the discretion of the trial court.
Board of Commissioners v. Harlev, 75 Ill. App. 218, affirmed.
Appeal from the Appellate Court for the First District;—heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Richard S. Tuthill, Judge, presiding.
Robert S. Iles, County Attorney, and Frank L. Shepard, for appellant.
Wing, Chadbourne & Leach, for appellee.

Opinion:
Mr. Chief Justice Carter
delivered the opinion of the court:
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Court affirming a judgment of the circuit court of Cook county in favor of appellee. The appellee, William Harlev, brought suit against Cook county for $18,000, which amount he claimed was due him for extras furnished by him in the construction of the second ward building of the Cook county insane asylum at Dunning. No evidence was offered by appellant, and the jury returned a verdict for §6402.
All questions of fact have been settled adversely to appellant by the judgment of the Appellate Court, and the only errors we can consider relate to the instructions and the admission of evidence. The only objection to the reception of evidence was to the order of its admission. This is wholly within the discretion of the trial court.
We do not find that appellee's instructions are open to the criticisms made on them, but think that they stated the law applicable to the case correctly, and were reasonably clear and explicit, and, taken in connection with those given for appellant, could not have misled the jury. Appellant's refused instructions were fully covered by those given, and the modification of instruction 10 was warranted by the evidence and could not have resulted in any harm to appellant.
Finding no error the judgment is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.