{
  "id": 5319154,
  "name": "Nicholas Verdon, Appellee, v. Nicholas Lessares, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Verdon v. Lessares",
  "decision_date": "1911-01-23",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 15,454",
  "first_page": "484",
  "last_page": "485",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "159 Ill. App. 484"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 171,
    "char_count": 1863,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.51,
    "sha256": "b751874ab9019f50a5a10bbb012252a0f475c2a035cd394f826e337d4e04c83c",
    "simhash": "1:32c6439004300be8",
    "word_count": 311
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:33:35.030835+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Nicholas Verdon, Appellee, v. Nicholas Lessares, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Brown\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe plaintiff in this case recovered a judgment against the defendant for $496 and costs, January 9, 1909. The suit was for wages claimed to be due. Prom this judgment the defendant has appealed and claims that the verdict was manifestly against the weight of the evidence, and that the court below therefore erred in not granting a new trial. The evidence was conflicting. The plaintiff himself swore that he had worked for the defendant at a certain rate of wages for over sixteen months, and had not been paid. The defend- \u2018 ant swears that he paid him every week, and brings corroborating evidence of others, who say they saw him paid.\nWe think the question being one entirely of credibility, the jury and the court below could decide better than we where the real weight of the evidence lay.\nWe have examined the instructions as a whole, and do not think that the jury were incorrectly or insufficiently instructed, or that the refusal, complained of, of certain instructions, was injurious error.\nUnder the pleadings and evidence, there is no merit in the contention that the claim should have been defeated because, if it existed, it was a partnership debt of the defendant and another.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Brown"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Miles J. Devine, for appellant; John T. Murray, of counsel.",
      "Haynie R. Pearson, for appellee; Samuel W. Jackson, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Nicholas Verdon, Appellee, v. Nicholas Lessares, Appellant.\nGen. No. 15,454.\nVebdicts\u2014when not disturbed as against the evidence. A verdict will not be set aside on review as against the evidence unless clearly and manifestly against its weight.\nAssumpsit. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Solon Philbrick, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1909.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed January 23, 1911.\nMiles J. Devine, for appellant; John T. Murray, of counsel.\nHaynie R. Pearson, for appellee; Samuel W. Jackson, of counsel."
  },
  "file_name": "0484-01",
  "first_page_order": 502,
  "last_page_order": 503
}