{
  "id": 5389752,
  "name": "Paul O. Moratz, Appellee, v. Maurice C. McCarthy, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Moratz v. McCarthy",
  "decision_date": "1914-05-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "69",
  "last_page": "70",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "188 Ill. App. 69"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 157,
    "char_count": 1935,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.514,
    "sha256": "66b0b67f5b6d9c9fd6067afc11f203ed117dc3426eee7597b414c0e7ec9ae02e",
    "simhash": "1:73d0a07332657403",
    "word_count": 341
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:17:45.032867+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Paul O. Moratz, Appellee, v. Maurice C. McCarthy, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Thompson\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Thompson"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "DeMange, Gillespie & DeMange, for appellant.",
      "Livingston & Bach, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Paul O. Moratz, Appellee, v. Maurice C. McCarthy, Appellant.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the County Court of McLean county; the Hon. Homer W. Hall, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1913.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed May 5, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Paul 0. Moratz against Maurice 0. McCarthy to recover an amount due on an order for $77.67 given to plaintiff by defendant on a settlement of a building account. The suit was begun before a justice of the peace and an appeal was taken to the County Court. The court on the day the case was set for trial denied defendant\u2019s motion for a continuance, but postponed the trial until the next day. Defendant failing to appear on the following day, plaintiff recovered a verdict and judgment for $82.50. To reverse the judgment, defendant appeals.\nAbstract of the Decision.\nContinuance, \u00a7 51*\u2014when denial of motion not error. A denial of defendant\u2019s motion for a continuance made on the day the case was set for trial on the ground that defendant and his attorney had no notice of the setting of the case for trial and that defendant could not he ready on that day because he did not know the whereabouts of two of his witnesses, who were in the city of Bloomington, and because another witness was in Taylorville, held not error where it appeared the court offered to postpone the trial until 1:30 p. m. the next day and counsel stated he could not be ready by that time, hut the court did postpone the trial to the following day and no reason appeared showing why defendant could not have been ready the day the case was tried if he had used any diligence to procure his witnesses after the hearing was postponed.\nCounsel for appellant made a statement of the case but filed no brief or argument.\nDeMange, Gillespie & DeMange, for appellant.\nLivingston & Bach, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0069-01",
  "first_page_order": 89,
  "last_page_order": 90
}