{
  "id": 2507663,
  "name": "George Reisch, et al., v. Lizzie M. Foster",
  "name_abbreviation": "Reisch v. Foster",
  "decision_date": "1906-03-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "509",
  "last_page": "511",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "125 Ill. App. 509"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "109 Ill., 314",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2854862
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/109/0314-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 268,
    "char_count": 3803,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.509,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.0815653731163477
    },
    "sha256": "dc694702aab3cf5738aba3d7116c8b1c087a72846e4b022d8b8d82b479316479",
    "simhash": "1:ccc90a09a9fd6af9",
    "word_count": 631
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:50:11.384860+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "George Reisch, et al., v. Lizzie M. Foster."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Ramsay\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nLizzie M. Foster, the appellee, brought suit in the Circuit Court of Sangamon county, against appellants, under the Dram-Shop Act, claiming that her husband became intoxicated in a saloon conducted in a building owned by appellants, and that while so intoxicated he assaulted appellee, by means whereof she miscarried and suffered nervous prostration, etc. The jury returned a verdict in appellee\u2019s favor for $500, judgment was rendered thereon and Beisch et al. appeal.\nAppellants emphasize \u25a0 three grounds only, upon which they ask for a reversal of the judgment. They first contend that the verdict is the result of passion and prejudice and not warranted by the evidence. Upon a careful review of the record we cannot adopt that view of the case. Two or three witnesses testified that appellee\u2019s husband drank liquor several times in the saloon conducted on the premises of appellants on the day in question; and even if the testimony of B. 1ST. Foster (the husband) be entirely ignored as unworthy of belief, as claimed by appellants, there is still ample and sufficient evidence to warrant the jury in finding that Foster drank liquors in such saloon and became intoxicated by reason thereof.\nAppellants next contend that the damages were excessive and that such excessiveness is suggestive of punitive damages. We do not think so. Judging from the size of the verdict, we do not believe the jury had any thought of awarding any damages beyond actual damages. The assault upon the appellee in her condition, with the results that followed, were enough to warrant the verdict returned as. compensatory only.\nAppellants also contend that the instructions given for appellee were erroneous and should not have been given. Objection is made upon the ground that in the instructions for appellee the court referred to the alleged assault without referring to the assault as described in the declaration. We do not see how this could have misled the jury. There was only one assault involved and that was the one described in the declaration. jSTo evidence was offered as- to any other. The same question arose in the case of C., B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Avery, 109 Ill., 314, where the court say: \u201cIt is objected to the second instruction that it is too broad in that it does not confine the rights of recovery to the negligence alleged in the declaration. As applied to the facts, there not being a particle of evidence of any other negligence than that alleged in the declaration, the instruction cannot be said to be erroneous in the respect named.\u201d Furthermore, appellants\u2019 third instruction as given was open to the same criticism (if it be an objection) in which the matter was referred to as \u201cthe injury in question,\u201d without reference to the charge as laid in the declaration. Appellants were, therefore, in no position to complain upon that account.\nThe other objections urged to the instructions as given for appellee do not, in our judgment, merit discussion.\nThe instructions as a series stated the law with substantial accuracy and the judgment of the lower court was right.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Ramsay"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Shutt, Graham & Graham, for appellants.",
      "Robert H. Patton and James E. Dowling, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "George Reisch, et al., v. Lizzie M. Foster.\n1. Instruction\u2014when failure of,, to confine jury to declaration, not error. An instruction which refers to \u201cthe alleged assault,\u201d without referring to the assault as described in the declaration, is not erroneous where there was only one assault mentioned in the evidence.\nProceeding under Dram-Shop Act. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Sangamon County; the Hon. James A. Creighton, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the November term, 1905.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 20, 1906.\nShutt, Graham & Graham, for appellants.\nRobert H. Patton and James E. Dowling, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0509-01",
  "first_page_order": 553,
  "last_page_order": 555
}