{
  "id": 2838310,
  "name": "Neil Moore, Appellee, v. P. H. Murphy, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Moore v. Murphy",
  "decision_date": "1913-10-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "499",
  "last_page": "500",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "183 Ill. App. 499"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 185,
    "char_count": 2087,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.529,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.527646540942415e-08,
      "percentile": 0.34850719095978183
    },
    "sha256": "f991c2964738e03329942244578f24b29d1a1d3033a0d58cc035c5891f985e81",
    "simhash": "1:1a9ddd650c8e20d4",
    "word_count": 342
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:57:27.806602+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Neil Moore, Appellee, v. P. H. Murphy, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice McBride\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n2. Master and servant, \u00a7 825*\u2014when remarles of counsel prejudicial. Remark by counsel in closing argument to the jury. \u201cWe are not asking you to put your hands in Mr. Murphy\u2019s pockets because he is a rich man and owns a big plant out here,\u201d held, prejudicial.\n3. Trial, \u00a7 113*\u2014when remarles of counsel improper. Statement of counsel explaining why his first declaration was prepared in the manner it was, held, improper.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice McBride"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wise, Keefe & Wheeler, for appellant.",
      "Kramer, Kramer & Campbell and C. H. G. Heinfelden, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Neil Moore, Appellee, v. P. H. Murphy, Appellant.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Master and servant, \u00a7 701 \u2014when evidence insufficient to sustain verdict for injury to operator of tin cutting machine. In an action for the loss of three fingers while operating a tin cutting machine for defendant, a verdict for plaintiff, held, manifestly against the weight of the evidence where it is not clear from the evidence whether the accident happened in the manner claimed by plaintiff and. the plaintiff is contradicted by two entirely disinterested witnesses.\nAppeal from the City Court of Bast St. Louis; the Hon. W. -M. Vandeventer, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1913.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed October 9, 1913.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Neil Moore, a minor, by William N. Moore, his next friend, against P. H. Murphy to recover for injuries sustained by plaintiff while operating a tin cutting machine for defendant. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff for two thousand dollars, defendant appeals.\nErrors assigned by counsel were in substance: That the plaintiff assumed the risk; that the injury was occasioned by plaintiff\u2019s own negligence; that the plaintiff operated the machine in direct violation of his instructions; that the judgment is not supported by the evidence; that remarks of plaintiff\u2019s counsel to jury constitute reversible error.\nWise, Keefe & Wheeler, for appellant.\nKramer, Kramer & Campbell and C. H. G. Heinfelden, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XIV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0499-01",
  "first_page_order": 521,
  "last_page_order": 522
}