{
  "id": 2533959,
  "name": "William H. Bartlett, et al., v. Benjamin F. Slusher",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bartlett v. Slusher",
  "decision_date": "1904-11-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "138",
  "last_page": "139",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "117 Ill. App. 138"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "85 Ill. 285",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 154,
    "char_count": 1737,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.507,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3881941959850483e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6421397540937714
    },
    "sha256": "df04ba3e03fb400acda68cf42a94074e69d74aa1bba3337fde73c4b9a060d61e",
    "simhash": "1:a36f544cf80c0898",
    "word_count": 290
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:16:02.267508+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William H. Bartlett, et al., v. Benjamin F. Slusher."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gest\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis is a suit in assumpsit by appellee, Slusher, against appellants, to recover divers sums of money paid by appellee to appellants upon certain alleged gambling transactions in grain on the Chicago Board of Trade. Trial was bad by the court without a jury, and finding and judgment for plaintiff, Slusher, in the sum of $1,270.\nThere are but two questions for our disposition. The deposition of one Parke had been taken and returned into court and had not been withdrawn. This deposition had been taken as a witness for defendants and consisted of examination and cross-examination. Upon the trial plaintiff read the deposition in evidence over defendants\u2019 objection. There was no error in this. Adams, et al., v. Russell, 85 Ill. 285.\nThe other question is, does the evidence sustain the finding and judgment \\ Otherwise put, the question is, does the evidence show that it was understood by both parties that the purpose of the various transactions was to win or lose money on the fluctuations of the market ? We are satisfied with the finding of the court below on this question. Ho other reasonable conclusion can be drawn from the evidence.\nThe judgment will be affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gest"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "George P. Merrick, for appellants; Hugh Crea, of counsel.",
      "Mills Bros, and LeForgee & Vail, for appellee. ("
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William H. Bartlett, et al., v. Benjamin F. Slusher.\n1. Deposition\u2014right of party not taking, to read. The plaintiff has the right to read in evidence a deposition taken by the defendants.\nAction of assumpsit. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Macon County; the Hon. William C. Johns, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the May term, 1904.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed November 18, 1904.\nGeorge P. Merrick, for appellants; Hugh Crea, of counsel.\nMills Bros, and LeForgee & Vail, for appellee. ("
  },
  "file_name": "0138-01",
  "first_page_order": 154,
  "last_page_order": 155
}