{
  "id": 2563357,
  "name": "Joseph W. Ripley v. Peter Vorslowsky",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ripley v. Vorslowsky",
  "decision_date": "1903-10-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "659",
  "last_page": "661",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "109 Ill. App. 659"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 230,
    "char_count": 3802,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.564,
    "sha256": "8c5013a9cf6b7178a40c7e1488516d0d6d7a51fcad0b743375e18f30a16473c9",
    "simhash": "1:37a9c78082431b89",
    "word_count": 654
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:51:53.684315+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Joseph W. Ripley v. Peter Vorslowsky."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Freeman\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAppellant sued to recover money which he claims to have loaned to appellee; The latter denies that he ever borrowed any money of appellant, and states that the only obligation to the latter ever incurred by him was for money lost in a card game at appellant\u2019s place. The testimony is contradictory, and appellant complains that the court improperly modified the only instruction offered in his behalf. That instruction is as follows:\n\u201c The jury are instructed that if they believe from a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff, Ripley, loaned to the defendant, Vorslowsky, money, as claimed by the plaintiff, and that the sum of $190 of said money has not been repaid, and if you further believe from a preponderance of the evidence that in loaning said money the plaintiff did not know that the said defendant, Yorslowsky, was going to gamble with said money, then it will be your duty to find the issues for the plaintiff.\u201d\nThe court added to this the following: \u201cUnless you further believe from a preponderance of the evidence that the indebtedness in question was a gambling debt,\u201d and also gave of its own motion an additional instruction as follows:\n\u201c The jury are instructed that if they believe from the evidence that the indebtedness in question, if any indebtedness is shown by the evidence, was a gambling debt, then your verdict should be for the defendant.\u201d\nNo explanation of what constitutes a \u201c gambling debt \u201d was made. The jury were left to determine that matter for themselves. We regard this instruction and modification as erroneous. The statute relied upon by the defense' is as follows:\n\u201cAll promises * * * made by any person whatsoever, where the whole or any part of the consideration thereof shall be for any money, property or other valuable thing, won by any gaming, or playing at cards, dice or any other game or games, or by betting, * * * or for the reimbursing or paying any money or property knowingly lent or advanced at the time and place of such play or bet, to any person or persons so gaming or betting, or that shall, during such play or betting, so play or bet, shall be void and of no effect.\u201d Rev. Stat., Chap. 38, Sec. 131.\nAppellant was entitled to have the jury instructed as he requested, under the evidence in his behalf.\nThe judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Freeman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "George A. B. Pfuhl, attorney for appellant; Howard E. Leach, of counsel",
      "Henry A. Wilder, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Joseph W. Ripley v. Peter Vorslowsky.\n1. Instructions \u2014As to Money Loaned and Lost at Gambling.\u2014In an action under chapter 32, section 13, R. S., for money loaned and lost at gambling, an instruction to the jury that if they believe from a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff loaned to the defendant money as claimed by the plaintiff, and that the sum of $190 of said money has not been repaid, and if you further believe from a preponderance of the evidence that in loaning said money the plaintiff did not know that the said defendant was going to gamble with said money, then it will be your duty to find the issues for the plaintiff, is proper.\n2. Same\u2014As to Gambling Debts, Without Defining the Term.\u2014An instruction that if the jury believe from the evidence that the indebtedness in question, if any indebtedness is shown by the evidence, was a gambling debt, then your verdict should be for the defendant, giving no explanation of what constitutes a gambling debt, but leaving the jury to determine that matter for themselves, is erroneous.\nTranscript from Justice of the Peace.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Russell P. Goodwin, Judge presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1902.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed October 9, 1903.\nGeorge A. B. Pfuhl, attorney for appellant; Howard E. Leach, of counsel\nHenry A. Wilder, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0659-01",
  "first_page_order": 685,
  "last_page_order": 687
}