
    West Chicago Street Railway Company v. Charles W. Randolph.
    Gen. No. 11,191.
    1. Verdict—when, not disturbed. Where the sole question at issue is whether or not the evidence supports the verdict, the Appellate Court will not disturb the judgment where the trial judge gave the verdict the sanction of his approval, and the evidence of the appellee considered by itself is sufficient to sustain the same.
    3. Verdict—when sufficiency of evidence to sustain, cannot be urged as a matter of law. An appellant is precluded upon appeal from making the claim that there was no evidence to support the plaintiff's claim, where it requested and the court gave to the jury instructions submitting such question as one of fact.
    Action commenced before justice of the peace. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Philip Stein, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1903.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed March 17, 1904.
    John A. Rose and Louis Boisot, for appellant; W. W. Gurley, of counsel.
    James R. Ward, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Ball

delivered the opinion of the court.

Appellee brought an action in justice court against appellant to recover damages for injury to his wagon caused by a car operated, as he alleges, by appellant, running into the, wagon. He recovered a judgment in the justice court. Upon appeal to. the Circuit Court and a trial therein the jury returned a verdict in favor of appellee, assessing his damages at the sum of $200. • The motion for a new trial was overruled, and, upon a remittitur of $50, judgment was entered against appellant for $150. From that judgment this appeal was perfected.

The only question in issue is whether 'or not the evidence shows that the car which struck the wagon was operated by appellant. This question was properly submitted to the jury under the instructions of the court. They found against appellant. The learned judge gave the verdict the sanction of his approval. The evidence of appellee, considered by itself, is sufficient to sustain the finding. Appellant submitted this question to the jury, and thereby estopped itself from urging now and here that there is no evidence tending to sustain the verdict. Chicago T. Ry. Co. v. Schmelling, 197 Ill. 624.

The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.

Affirmed.  