
    Colley v. Harding.
    1. Jv~y--Provfiwe to Reconcile conflicting Evidence.-It is the province of the jury to reconcile conflicting evidence, and settle doubtful questions of fact. The Appellate Court will not disturb a finding, unless the verdict is so clearly against the evidence as to be considered the result of passion, prejudice or a palpable misapprehension of the facts.
    Men1orau1u]n~-Trespa~s for cutting ice, Appeal from the Circuit Court of La Salle County; the Hon. CH.neLEs Bi~&NdnARD, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the May terni, 1893, and affirmed~
    Opinion filed December 12, 1893.
    STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
    This action was brought by appellant, Colley, against the appellee, Harding, to recover damages for an alleged trespass upon lots in the city of Streator, by cutting and carrying away ice from that portion of the Yermillion river flowing over said lots. On the trial, the appellee contended that the ice was cut and removed from that portion of the river east of the east line of appellant's lots, and therefore not from his land,s. The judgment being for the defendant,. the plaintiff appeals.
    H. N. RYoN & SON and A. P. WRIGHT, attqrneys for appellant.
    MCDOUGALL & CHAPMAN and 3'. T. MUEDOOK, attorneys for appellee.
   OPINIoN OF THE COURT,

HAiu~ER, P. 3'.

This action was brought by appellant to recover damages for the alleged trespass of cutting and removing ice from that part of the Yermillion river which overflowed his out-lots 1, 2 and 3, in Riverside addition to the city of Streator, He was defeated in a trial in the Circuit Court, and judgrn.ent rendered against him for costs. He urges a reversal upon the sole ground that the verdict was against the evidence.

Appellee was engaged in harvesting ice for storage. Whether in his operations he cut and removed ice from the lots described, was the question tried and decided by the jury. There was some conflict between the witnesses and _ uncertainty as to location. An examination of the evidence in the record, leaves our minds in doubt. It is the province of the jury to reconcile conflicting evidence and settle doubtful questions of fact. If the trial was fairly had, and no error oí the trial court intervened, an appellate court should not disturb the finding, unless the verdict is so clearly against the evidence as to be considered only as the result of passion, prejudice, or a palpable misapprehension of the facts. C. & A. R. R. Co. v. Shannon, Adm’r, etc., 43 Il. 338; Twining v. Martin, 65 Ill. 157.

We do not feel warranted in disturbing the finding which the jury made in this case. Judgment affirmed.  