delivered the opinion of the court.
Hallissey v. Rothschild & Co., 203 Ill. App. 283 (1917)
Jan. 22, 1917
·
Illinois Appellate Court
·
Gen. No. 22,606
203 Ill. App. 283
John and William Hallissey, trading as Hallissey Brothers, Appellees, v. Rothschild & Company, Appellant.
Gen. No. 22,606.
(Not to he reported in full.)
Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Edward T. Wade, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed January 22, 1917.
Statement of the Case.
Action by John and William Hallissey, trading as Hallissey Brothers, plaintiffs, against Rothschild & Company, defendant, to recover damages to plaintiffs’ *284horse occasioned by the negligent operation of defendant’s automobile. From a judgment for plaintiffs for $225, defendant appeals.
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Appeal and ebrob, § 1512 * —when improper remarles by trial court are harmless error. Where the verdict of the jury was the only one under the evidence they could properly have reached, the judgment should not be reversed merely bcause of improper remarks by the trial judge in refusing a request for a continuance of the case.
2. Automobiles and gabages, § 3 * —when question whether collision of automobile with horse is due to sole negligence of driver of automobile is for jury. Where plaintiffs’ horse while turning into a cross street, after its driver had looked behind and seen defendant’s automobile one-fourth of a block away and going at eighteen or twenty miles an hour, was struck by the automobile which had attempted to pass on the side towards which the horse was turning, held that it was a question of fact for the jury whether the accident was caused by defendant’s sole negligence.
3. Damages, § 190 * —when verdict for injury to horse is not excessive. Where the evidence showed plaintiffs’ horse was worth $250 before it was injured by defendant’s automobile, and thereafter was lame, unfit for any but farm work, and worth about $50, and that its board following the injury was $46, held that a verdict for $225 was not excessive.
John A. Bloomingston, for appellant.
Ryan, Condon & Livingston, for appellees; Donald A. Callahan, of counsel.