Case Name: Illinois Central R. Co. v. The People, Use of Stephen Moore
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1893-12-12
Citations: 49 Ill. App. 542
Docket Number: 
Parties: Illinois Central R. Co. v. The People, Use of Stephen Moore.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 49
Pages: 542–543

Head Matter:
Illinois Central R. Co. v. The People, Use of Stephen Moore.
1. Instructions—Erroneous but Barnüess.—In an action against a railroad company for obstructing a public highway by stopping any trains upon, or by leaving any cars or locomotive engines standing on its track where the same intersects or crosses such highway, the court erroneously instructed the jury that it was sufficient to render the company liable if the proof showed that it left any car standing on the track where the same intersects the crossing, but the evidence was clear that the cars did on the day alleged obstruct the crossing, and there being no eountervening testimony, it was held. that no harm was done by giving it.
Memorandum .“-Action for obstructing a highway. Appeal from the Circuit Gourt of Kankakee County; the Hon. Charles R. Starr, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the May term, 1893, and affirmed.
Opinion filed December 12, 1893.
The statement of facts is contained in the opinion of the court,
'Wheeler & Hunter, attorneys for appellant.
Stephen R. Moore, attorney for appellee.

Opinion:
Opinion oe the Court,
Hareer, P. J.
The facts in this case are substantially the same as in number 2562 (second preceding case), ante, except that the obstructing of Hickory street crossing is shown to have been on a different day. There was a finding on one count for $50, and judgment entered accordingly.
The evidence abundantly supports the verdict. We see no serious error of the court in ruling upon the evidence.
The court erroneously instructed the juiy that it was sufficient to render the railroad company liable if the proof showed that it left any car standing on the track where the same intersects the crossing; but as the evidence was clear that the cars of appellant did, on the day alleged, obstruct the crossing, and there was no countervening testimony as to that point, no harm was done appellant by the giving of it. Substantial justice was done and the judgment should be affirmed.