Case Name: George Westgate v. Reinhart Aschenbrenner
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1890-12-22
Citations: 39 Ill. App. 263
Docket Number: 
Parties: George Westgate v. Reinhart Aschenbrenner.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 39
Pages: 263–266

Head Matter:
George Westgate v. Reinhart Aschenbrenner.
Replevin — Alleged Sale — Evidence — Instructions—Stenographer's Notes.
1. In an action of replevin, this court holds, the jury having been correctly instructed, and the evidence supporting the verdict, that the judgment for the plaintiff must be affirmed.
2. Upon petition for rehearing, where the petitioner complained’ that a point of law had been overlooked by the court, held, that as the point in question had not been presented by the instructions asked in the court below, it was not to be considered here.
3. Although an instruction may be erroneous considered as an abstract statement of law, yet where the court can see that the jury were not misled, the judgment will not, on account of such error, be reversed.
[Opinion filed December 22, 1890.]
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lee County; the Hon. Johít D. Crabtree, Judge, presiding.
Messrs. Dixon & Bethea, for appellant.
Messrs. R. S. Farrand and J. E. Lewis, for appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This case was a suit in replevin to recover the possession of a road-cart, which, as appellee claimed, he had sold and delivered to appellant for $30, which w'as to be paid for on delivery or the next morning, and the purchase price not being paid as agreed, the appellee brought the suit. It is the counterpart of the same transaction litigated in appellant against appellee and reported in this volume,page 266. The same complaint is made that the evidence fails to support the verdict. We think it sufficiently supports it, and there was no error committed by the jury.. It was correct for the court to refuse to allow the stenographer's notes to be read to the jury as a part of the evidence to refresh the jury's mind as to what the evidence was. •
It was not error under the circumstances in this case to limit the number of appellant's impeaching witnesses.
Seeing no error the judgment is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.