{
  "id": 2839391,
  "name": "Ernest D. McArthur, Defendant in Error, v. Joseph A. Hopson, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "McArthur v. Hopson",
  "decision_date": "1914-01-12",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 18,354",
  "first_page": "487",
  "last_page": "488",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "184 Ill. App. 487"
    }
  ],
  "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": 2603,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.552,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.856319230494445e-08,
      "percentile": 0.30505890497863003
    },
    "sha256": "e2f592e903af170e2a7e6b17e2c5d7c748710671df5fc3dfe68cadca8151de0e",
    "simhash": "1:69e1cab548aec6d9",
    "word_count": 431
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:47:41.859813+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Ernest D. McArthur, Defendant in Error, v. Joseph A. Hopson, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Brown\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Brown"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Cruice & Langille, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Comerford & Cohen, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Ernest D. McArthur, Defendant in Error, v. Joseph A. Hopson, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 18,354.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Charles A. Williams, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1912.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed January 12, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Ernest D. McArthur against Joseph A. Hopson to recover damages for alienation of the affections of plaintiff\u2019s wife. To reverse a judgment entered in favor of plaintiff for one thousand dollars, defendant prosecutes error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Husband and wife, \u00a7 280 \u2014when admission of letter in suit for alienation reversible error. In an action for alienation of wife\u2019s affections, admission in evidence of a letter'written \"by the wife to defendant and found in defendant\u2019s possession held reversible error.\n2. Husband and wife, \u00a7 280 \u2014when letter written by wife to husband not admissible in suit for alienation. In an action for alienation of plaintiff\u2019s wife\u2019s affections, a letter written by the wife to the plaintiff held not admissible in evidence.\n3. Marriage, \u00a7 26 \u2014sufficiency of proof of ceremonial marriage. In an action for alienation of wife\u2019s affections, proof of ceremonial marriage held scanty where plaintiff testified he was married to his alleged wife on a certain date at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and further puts in evidence over objection a certificate of a justice of the peace in Milwaukee county, which in connection with his testimony showed that the ceremony was before such justice.\n4. Marriage, \u00a7 24 \u2014evidence inadmissible to prove ceremonial marriage. The certificate of a justice of the peace of another State is not of itself evidence of the official character of the justice or of his right to perform a marriage ceremony or that the ceremony was performed and is inadmissible as such evidence.\n5. Husband and wife, \u00a7 280 \u2014degree of proof required in suit for alienation. In an action for alienation of wife\u2019s affections a preponderance of the evidence is sufficient to establish plaintiff\u2019s case.\n6. Municipal Court of Chicago, \u00a7 27 \u2014when rules of court must be presented by bill of exceptions. The Appellate Court in cases coming from the Municipal Court cannot take judicial notice of the rules of that court nor consider them unless they are made a part of the record by a bill of exceptions.\nCruice & Langille, for plaintiff in error.\nComerford & Cohen, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0487-01",
  "first_page_order": 511,
  "last_page_order": 512
}