{
  "id": 5370650,
  "name": "Amanda Jones, Appellee, v. Anton Jones, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Jones v. Jones",
  "decision_date": "1914-04-23",
  "docket_number": "Gen No. 19,129",
  "first_page": "106",
  "last_page": "107",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "186 Ill. App. 106"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 176,
    "char_count": 2079,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.511,
    "sha256": "2b8266a2c03dd0918769e952ddc7857cf5e835014587ca3f1c939ffb78d7b19e",
    "simhash": "1:c150dfdb38bf72dc",
    "word_count": 339
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:18:25.002075+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Amanda Jones, Appellee, v. Anton Jones, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gridley\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gridley"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Burns & Traub, for appellant.",
      "George W. Rugby, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Amanda Jones, Appellee, v. Anton Jones, Appellant.\nGen No. 19,129.\n(Not to Tbe reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Richard S. Tuthill, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1913.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 23, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nBill filed by Amanda Jones against Anton Jones for separate maintenance, alleging that complainant was compelled to leave the defendant because of Ms inhuman treatment, habitual drunkenness and adultery, and praying for the custody of a child, alimony and solicitor\u2019s fees. Defendant filed an answer denying the material averment of the bill and further denying that she was a proper person to have the care and custody of the child, and also filed a cross-bill alleging, inter alia, that complainant wilfully deserted him without just cause and praying for an absolute divorce and the custody of said child. The chancellor found the issues for complainant and entered a decree for separate maintenance, giving her the care and custody of the child, and requiring defendant to pay for her support and the support of said child ten dollars per week, and also a sum of fifty dollars for solicitor\u2019,s fees. To reverse the decree, defendant appeals.\nBurns & Traub, for appellant.\nGeorge W. Rugby, for appellee.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Husband and wife, \u00a7 267 \u2014when finding of chancellor in separate maintenance proceeding will not be disturbed. A finding of a chancellor in a suit for separate maintenance, where the witnesses have been orally examined in open court, will not be disturbed on appeal unless the evidence clearly preponderates against it.\n2. Appeal and ebkob, \u00a7 1466 \u2014when admission in evidence of affidavit of doctor not reversible error. On bill for separate maintenance, admission in evidence of an affidavit of a doctor, over objection of counsel for defendant, held not reversible error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0106-01",
  "first_page_order": 152,
  "last_page_order": 153
}