
    The Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Catharine Grabill and David Grabill.
    1. Damages—computed upon rental value—not excessive. Where in a suit for damages for creating a nuisance in the vicinity of a dwelling house, the difference between its rental value, during the existence of the nuisance and prior to it, is not excessive.
    2. Same—what not admissible in computing damages. Where the nuisance complained of is a cattle pen, constructed by a railroad company upon their right of way, the noise made by the cattle and stock hands, being beyond the control of the company, is not a ground for damages against the company.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Champaign county; the Hon. A. J. Gallagheb, Judge,, presiding.
    The facts in this case are to be found in the preceding opinion, the difference in the two cases being, that in this case the -jury had before them the precise nature of the damage as the ba_sis of computation, namely, the difference between the rental value of the premises in question, before the existence of the nuisance complained of, and during the time it was con- . tinned.
    Mr. W. D. Somers, for the appellants.
    Messrs. Coler & Smith, for the appellees.
   Mr. Chief Justice Breese

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This case differs from the preceding in one important particular. The jury had before them the rental value of these premises, thereby affording them some precise data on which to base their verdict.

The time alleged of the continuance of the nuisance, was from the 23d of June, 1867, to the 20th of May, 1868, a period of about eleven months. The rental value of the premises was proved to have been deteriorated, by reason of the stench from the cattle pen and noxious effluvia arising therefrom, from fifteen dollars a month to ten dollars, which, for eleven months, would amount to fifty-five dollars. Forty-five dollars, then, may be considered as the damage incurred by reason of personal annoyance and discomforts occasioned by the pen.

Under these circumstances, we cannot say any injustice has been done the appellants. The noises made by the cattle and stock hands, in loading and unloading, it is not to be supposed, furnished any ground for this recovery, as the court instructed them, and properly, that appellants were not responsible for them.

The judgment is affirmed. .

Judgment affirmed.  