{
  "id": 2561235,
  "name": "Shutt Improvement Company v. J. H. Thompson",
  "name_abbreviation": "Shutt Improvement Co. v. Thompson",
  "decision_date": "1903-09-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "540",
  "last_page": "542",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "109 Ill. App. 540"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 239,
    "char_count": 4321,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.55,
    "sha256": "4a53bd06b419399867dbeeb8c2637caa48c318dc2f81ebfc57e184140241a322",
    "simhash": "1:d1ae2f6846551b78",
    "word_count": 717
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:51:53.684315+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Shutt Improvement Company v. J. H. Thompson."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Creighton\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis was an action of assumpsit commenced by attachment, in the Circuit Court of Randolph County, by appellee against appellant. Trial by jury. Verdict and judgment in favor of appellee for $381.20.\nAppellant, the defendant below, was a non-resident of the State of Illinois, and no question is raised as to the attachment feature of the case. The declaration consists of the common counts, for labor and services rendered; for goods, wares and merchandise sold and delivered; and for money laid out and expended. Appellant appeared by F. M. Estes, its general attorney, and J. B. Simpson, its local attorney, and pleaded the general issue, and gave notice of defense in the nature of set-off and of recoupment, These pleadings were signed \"F. M. Estes, J. B. Simpson, attorneys for defendant.\u201d\nThe errors relied on for reversal are, that the court erred in denying appellant\u2019s motion for continuance, in refusing certain instructions asked by appellant, and in denying appellant\u2019s motion for new tidal.\nWhen the case was called for trial appellant moved the court for a continuance on account of the absence of F. M. Estes, its general attorney. The motion was supported by the affidavit of appellant\u2019s secretary and manager. While this affidavit does disclose the absence of Mr. Estes, it fails utterly to disclose any reasonable excuse for his absence or any reasonable diligence on the part of appellant to have him present. Mr. Simpson, one of the attorneys who had signed the pleadings, was present in court. Upon this state of case we can not hold that the court erred in denying appellant\u2019s motion for continuance.\nThe refused instructions complained of pertain to appellant\u2019s claim for set-off, or to its claim for recoupment. The two that were given on behalf of appellant, fully, fairly and sufficiently state the law applicable. When the jury has been fully and fairly informed as to the law involved, by the instructions given, then it is not error to refuse others although they may state correct principles or propositions of law. It is apparent in this case, if the jury had taken appellant\u2019s view of the evidence, that the law as given would have led to a verdict quite satisfactory to appellant. We are of opinion that there was no substantial error in refusing the instructions complained of.\nCounsel insist the trial court should have granted a new trial because of lack of evidence to support the verdict, and because of newly-discovered evidence.\nThere is in this record a conflict or contrariety of evidence, but there is not any lack of evidence. Where there is a mere conflict, or contrariety of evidence, it is for the jury to determine. The jury in such cases must judge of the credibility of the witnesses and of the weight of the evidence.\nAs to the newly-discovered evidence suggested and disclosed by the affidavits, it is purely cumulative, and if it were produced, would not be conclusive. It is not error to refuse a new trial on the ground of such newly-discovered evidence.\nThis record does not disclose any substantial grounds for reversal. The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Creighton"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "F. M. Estes and J. B. Simpson, attorneys for appellant.",
      "H. Clay Horner, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Shutt Improvement Company v. J. H. Thompson.\n1. Practice\u2014Insufficient Affidavit for Continuance.\u2014An affidavit in support of a motion for a continuance which discloses the absence of the party's general attorney, but fails to disclose any reasonable excuse for his absence or any reasonable diligence on the part of the party to have him present, is insufficient.\n2. Instructions\u2014 When Not Error, to Refuse Instruction Stating Correct Principles of Law.\u2014When the jury has been fully and fairly informed as to the law involved, by the instructions given, then it is not error to refuse others, although they may state correct principles or propositions of law.\n3. New Trials\u2014No Error to Refuse on Ground of Newly-Discovered Cumulative Evidence.\u2014It is not error to refuse a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered cumulative evidence.\nAssumpsit.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Randolph County; the Hon. William Hartzell, Judge presiding. Heard in this court at the February term, 1903.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed September 10, 1903.\nF. M. Estes and J. B. Simpson, attorneys for appellant.\nH. Clay Horner, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0540-01",
  "first_page_order": 566,
  "last_page_order": 568
}