{
  "id": 2623661,
  "name": "People of the state of Illinois, Appellee, v. Thomas Burke, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Burke",
  "decision_date": "1909-12-07",
  "docket_number": "Gen No. 14,983",
  "first_page": "105",
  "last_page": "106",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "152 Ill. App. 105"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "96 Ill. 63",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2718283
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/96/0063-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 150,
    "char_count": 1767,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.574,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08284054398538293
    },
    "sha256": "a01339ce3f3bd625d0ba5e98165ae2d63d6042926f233ccc19f25b7c6af91278",
    "simhash": "1:b6273d8130ae19c9",
    "word_count": 298
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:55:41.765695+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "People of the state of Illinois, Appellee, v. Thomas Burke, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Smith\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe information in this case charges the defendant Burke with wife abandonment.\nThe only question presented is whether or not the evidence justifies or sustains the judgment: A jury wus waived and the cause was submitted to the court for trial.\nUpon a review of the evidence we are of the opinion that the finding and judgment is sustained by a clear preponderance of the evidence. It is clear from the evidence that defendant Burke not only abandoned his wife and refused to live with her, but that he neglected and refused to maintain and provide for her.\nThe evidence is conflicting in some particulars, and the presiding judge, with the witnesses and their manner of testifying before him, was in.a better position than is this court, sitting as a court of review, to determine the credibility of the witnesses and to say which of them is to be believed where their evidence is conflicting. Calvert v. Carpenter et ah, 96 Ill. 63. We cannot say from the record that the finding of the trial judge who heard the evidence and saw the witnesses as they delivered their testimony on the trial, is contrary to the weight of the evidence. The judgment must be affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Smith"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bulkley, Gray & More, for appellant; Charles King Sherman, of counsel.",
      "No appearance by appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "People of the state of Illinois, Appellee, v. Thomas Burke, Appellant.\nGen No. 14,983.\n1.TERDICTs-wlten not dist~urbed. A verdict not clearly and manifestly against the weight of the evidence will not be set aside on review.\nWife abandonment. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Jouu H. N~wcoMER, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1908.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 7, 1909.\nBulkley, Gray & More, for appellant; Charles King Sherman, of counsel.\nNo appearance by appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0105-01",
  "first_page_order": 123,
  "last_page_order": 124
}