Case Name: John Parker v. George H. Fergus
Court: Illinois Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1869-09
Citations: 52 Ill. 419
Docket Number: 
Parties: John Parker v. George H. Fergus.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Reports
Volume: 52
Pages: 419–420

Head Matter:
John Parker v. George H. Fergus.
Instruction—abstract principles. It is not erroneous to refuse to instruct a jury that a conversation not reduced to writing, when detailed by a witness after the lapse of six years, is to be received with caution, for the reason, if such an instruction amounts to anything, it is a mere abstraction, which the court has the discretion to give or refuse.
Appeal from the Superior Court of Chicago; the Hon William A. Porter, Judge, presiding.
This was an action of assumpsit, brought in the court below by George H. Fergus against Parker and Fagan, for the recovery of a bill for printing, claimed to have been done for the defendants as partners. Parker denies the partnership, and on a former hearing of this case, at the April term, 1867, reported in 43 Ill. 437, it was held, under the evidence then appearing in the record, that Parker was not liable as a partner, and the judgment was reversed. On another trial below additional evidence was introduced, on the subject of the partnership, which is quite voluminous, and would serve no valuable purpose to be repeated here.
The plaintiff again recovered a judgment, from which Parker appeals.
Mr. A. D. Rich, for the appellant.
Mr. John Lyle King, for the appellee.

Opinion:
Mr. Chief Justice Breese
delivered the opinion of the Court:
This case was before us at a previous term, and is reported in 43 Ill. 437, and a new trial has been had. On this second trial there was proof supplying the defect found to exist on the first trial, and a verdict again rendered for the plaintiff. That the jury were justified, by the evidence, in finding that Parker was a partner of Fagan, we have no doubt. - The arrangement between them, though in the form of a lease, was, as between them, to certain intents and purposes a partnership. The evidence in this record satisfactorily establishes this, and fixes the liability of appellant, as such.
We see no error in refusing to instruct the jury, on behalf of appellant, that a conversation not reduced to writing, when detailed by a witness after the lapse of six years, is to be received with caution, for the reason, if the instruction amounts to anything, it is a mere abstraction, which the court might properly refuse. The court had a discretion to give or refuse the instruction.
Perceiving no error in the record the judgment is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.