
    The City of Joliet v. Frederick Weston, Admr.
    
      Filed at Ottawa January 19, 1888.
    
    
      Appeal—reviewing facts—question of excessive damages. Whether the ■amount of damages found in an action for a tort is excessive, is a question ■of fact, not reviewable in this court on appeal from the Appellate Court. What is the rule for assessing the damages in any case is a question of law, but the amount of the damages, as depending upon the evidence, is a question of fact.
    Appeal from the Appellate Court for the Second District;— heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Will ■county; the Hon. Charles Blanchard, Judge, presiding.
    Mr. Fred. Bennitt, for the appellant:
    The damages ($1000 for the death of a child only four months old) are excessive, and nothing but the actual deprivation can be taken into consideration. Chicago v. Major, 18 Ill. 349.
    Messrs. Flanders & Shutts, for the appellee:
    The amount of damages in a case of this kind is a question of fact, not to be reviewed here. Furnace Co. v. Magill, 108 Ill. 656; Railroad Co. v. Becker, 84 id. 483.
    How the pecuniary damage is to be measured must be left largely to the discretion of the jury. Railroad Co. v. Shannon, 43 Ill. 338.
    This court has sustained judgments from $800 to $2000 in cases similar, the deceased being young children. Chicago v. 
      Major, 18 Ill. 349; Chicago v. Hesing, 83 id. 204; Railroad, Co. v. Becker, 84 id. 483.
   Mr. Justice Scott

delivered the opinion of the Court:

. The plaintiff in this case, Frederick Weston, as he was walking with a friend on one of the principal streets of the city of Joliet, carrying his little child in his arms, tripped and fell. By the fall the child, was so fatally injured it died in a few moments after the accident. The alleged cause of the accident was a defective condition of the sidewalk. The plaintiff, as administrator of his deceased child, brought this suit against the city of Joliet, to recover damages resulting to the next of kin on account of the death of the intestate. On the trial in the circuit court plaintiff recovered a judgment. That judgment was affirmed in the Appellate Court for the Second District, and the city asked for and was allowed an appeal to this court.

The attention of this court is directed to but one question,— that is, the damages found are excessive. That is a question that is not subject to review in this court. The rule for ascertaining the damages in any case, is, of course, a question of law, but the amount of the damages, as the same appears from the evidence, is a question of fact. No complaint is made, the court misdirected the jury as to the rules of law they should observe in ascertaining the damages the next of kin of the intestate had sustained, and which plaintiff was entitled to recover for them. It has been so often decided by this court, the amount of the damages sustained by the plaintiff in an action at law is a question of fact, not open to reconsideration in this court, under the statute, the question need not be discussed. It is enough to refer to the many cases in this court on that subject.

The judgment of the Appellate Court will be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  