{
  "id": 2739977,
  "name": "Hugh Lynch, Defendant in Error, v. Matthew Hettinger, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lynch v. Hettinger",
  "decision_date": "1911-10-05",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 15,715",
  "first_page": "359",
  "last_page": "360",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "163 Ill. App. 359"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 141,
    "char_count": 1740,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.484,
    "sha256": "961cd8088999c33c8a60f343870e0d365e1552dd43cfaa4e9d5a236299cb45a3",
    "simhash": "1:8ef94eaf3197a02c",
    "word_count": 304
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:45:41.237543+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Hugh Lynch, Defendant in Error, v. Matthew Hettinger, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Brown\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe judgment which this writ of error seeks to reverse is for $89 and costs. It was rendered by a judge of the Municipal Court of Chicago sitting without a jury.\nThe matter involved was one purely of fact. The plaintiff\u2014the defendant in error here\u2014claimed that the defendant, in carrying out a contract with the lessor of the plaintiff to repair and alter the premises occupied by the plaintiff, had used, without the consent of the plaintiff, some lumber belonging to the plaintiff and stored by him on the premises. The trial judge indicated by his finding, which has all the effect of a verdict by a jury, that he believed from the evidence that there was lumber belonging to the plaintiff so need by the defendant, but that he thought that the quantity and value of it had been exaggerated by the plaintiff and his witnesses.\nThe testimony was conflicting, and we know of no method by which we could make ourselves any more certain than was he of the exact truth. We are not \u2018\u2018 satisfied that the judgment is contrary to the law and the evidence, \u2019\u2019 and it is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Brown"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert B. Davies and Thomas F. Burke, for plaintiff in error.",
      "McMahon & Cheney, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Hugh Lynch, Defendant in Error, v. Matthew Hettinger, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 15,715.\nMunicipal Court\u2014when judgment not disturbed. A judgment of the Municipal Court will not be set aside on a question of fact unless the Appellate Court is \u201csatisfied that the judgment is contrary to the law and the evidence.\u201d\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Sheridan E. Fry, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1909.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 5, 1911.\nRobert B. Davies and Thomas F. Burke, for plaintiff in error.\nMcMahon & Cheney, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0359-01",
  "first_page_order": 379,
  "last_page_order": 380
}