Court Opinion

ID: 9539938
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:11:46.264772+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:28.878262
License: Public Domain

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON DENIAL OF REHEARING Mr. JUSTICE MEJDA delivered the opinion of the court: Plaintiff has filed a petition for rehearing in this case in which he tenders “his copy” of the July 1 statements. He maintains that the statements have never been available to “any of the bodies which had either the initial right to determine the evidence or the duty to review the determination.” It is clear, as fully discussed in our original opinion, that the Director had before him all statements of witnesses, including die July 1 statements. The record on appeal includes a report of the proceedings had before the Director on October 25, 1974, on plaintiff’s motions for a rehearing before the Department, at which the July 1 statements were received in evidence. It further appears therefrom that extensive references were made to the statements on a page-by-page basis, including quotations and paraphrasing of the contents, and the interrogation of plaintiff concerning the statements. Furthermore, plaintiff in the trial court agreed that the statements had been made part of the record before the agency. At the specific request of the plaintiff the trial court on April 10,1975, entered an order which stated: “On motion of plaintiff, it being agreed that a sworn statement of Emma Hope and Eunice Bullock taken July 1,1974 was admitted as part of the record on October 25,1975 [sic]. * ” °. It is ordered that the statement of Emma Hope and Eunice Bullock of July 1, 1974 be added as an additional record herein.” Therefore, it is also clear that the statements were before the trial court on April 24, 1975, when the Department’s decision was sustained.  Nonetheless, the July 1, 1974, statements have not been included in the record before this court. The duty of an appellant to furnish a record containing material essential to the disposition of the appeal is well established. (Perez v. Janota (1969), 107 Ill. App. 2d 90, 246 N.E.2d 42.) This court will not reverse on speculation and conjecture; any doubt arising from an incomplete record will be resolved against the appellant. (Solomon v. City of Evanston (1975), 29 Ill. App. 3d 782, 331 N.E.2d 380.) Matters de hors the record cannot be considered. (Perez v. Janota.) Accordingly, we cannot consider the July 1 statements which are not in the record. The petition for rehearing is denied. LORENZ and WILSON, JJ., concur.