Moore v. Murphy

Decided October 9, 1913

Appellate Court of Illinois · decided 1913-10-09

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Master and servant, § 701*—when evidence insufficient to sustain verdict for injury to operator of tin cutting machine. In an action for the loss of three fingers while operating a tin cutting machine for defendant, a verdict for plaintiff, held, manifestly against the weight of the evidence where it is not clear from the evidence whether the accident happened in the manner claimed by plaintiff and. the plaintiff is contradicted by two entirely disinterested witnesses. 2. Master and servant, § 825*—when remarles of counsel prejudicial. Remark by counsel in closing argument to the jury. “We are not asking you to put your hands in Mr. Murphy’s pockets because he is a rich man and owns a big plant out here,” held, prejudicial. 3. Trial, § 113*—when remarles of counsel improper. Statement of counsel explaining why his first declaration was prepared in the manner it was, held, improper.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 1928

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed and remanded · Decided 1913-10-09

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Presiding Justice McBride

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Master and servant, § 825*—when remarles of counsel prejudicial. Remark by counsel in closing argument to the jury. “We are not asking you to put your hands in Mr. Murphy’s pockets because he is a rich man and owns a big plant out here,” held, prejudicial. 3. Trial, § 113*—when remarles of counsel improper. Statement of counsel explaining why his first declaration was prepared in the manner it was, held, improper.