{
  "id": 2827706,
  "name": "Thomas Foulkes, Defendant in Error, v. Francis M. Steward, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Foulkes v. Steward",
  "decision_date": "1913-10-13",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 17,367",
  "first_page": "193",
  "last_page": "194",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "182 Ill. App. 193"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 175,
    "char_count": 2042,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.523,
    "sha256": "72fa5943f529cd39393f2f505906a91ca632a7a8e7b54c53e850342d97eff197",
    "simhash": "1:5c24e9bd5c3da094",
    "word_count": 345
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:04:20.195306+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Thomas Foulkes, Defendant in Error, v. Francis M. Steward, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Baker\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n3. New trial, \u00a7 52*\u2014when new trial will be granted. Held that a finding that five hundred dollars was paid by a patient to an agent of defendant physician was against the clear preponderance of evidence, wherefore a new trial should have been granted.\n4. Witnesses, \u00a7 256*\u2014what matters affect credibility. An instruction as to the credibility of witnesses held to omit the important element of the number of witnesses, the consistency of their testimony, its conformity with experience and its coincidence with collateral circumstances.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Baker"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Edward L. Harpham and C. W. Greenfield, for plaintiff in error.",
      "J. Marion Miller and Charles R. Whitman, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Thomas Foulkes, Defendant in Error, v. Francis M. Steward, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 17,367.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Fraud, \u00a7 111 \u2014what evidence is sufficient to show fraud of a physician. In an action by a patient against a physician for various sums of money which the patient claimed had been obtained from him by fraud, he being induced to believe that his eyes were diseased, held that the evidence of plaintiff was so self-contradictory and so opposed to the testimony of other witnesses that the judgment in his favor should be reversed.\n2. New trial, \u00a7 52*\u2014when new trial will he granted. Evidence held not to sustain a claim for one hundred and fifty dollars which a patient alleged had been stolen from him by a physician at a Turkish bath house, wherefore a new trial should be granted.\nError to the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Jesse A. Baldwin, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1911.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed October 13, 1913.\nStatement of tlie Case.\nAction of assumpsit by Thomas Foulkes against Francis M. Steward. From a judgment of two thousand two hundred and forty-seven dollars for plaintiff, defendant brings error.\nEdward L. Harpham and C. W. Greenfield, for plaintiff in error.\nJ. Marion Miller and Charles R. Whitman, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XIV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0193-01",
  "first_page_order": 217,
  "last_page_order": 218
}