{
  "id": 4904619,
  "name": "Kuhl v. Illinois Staats Zeitung Co.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Kuhl v. Illinois Staats Zeitung Co.",
  "decision_date": "1886-07-28",
  "docket_number": "No. 104\u20142374",
  "first_page": "658",
  "last_page": "658",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "20 Ill. App. 658"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 102,
    "char_count": 938,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.482,
    "sha256": "a83d1f8f8074e8d040a4a8fd5493e1f6f36119fb5ded2b9f018066858908810b",
    "simhash": "1:091494fdd8c67a63",
    "word_count": 159
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:00:57.020912+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Kuhl v. Illinois Staats Zeitung Co."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Opinion\nPer Curiam.\nJudge below, Rollin S. Williamson. Attorneys, for appellant, Mr. J. Burnham ; for appellee, Mr. Arnold Heap and Mr. Lorenzo C. Brooks.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "No. 104\u20142374.\nKuhl v. Illinois Staats Zeitung Co.\nAn action of debt upon an appeal bond. Upon the trial the jury found the issues for the plaintiff, and judgment was rendered accordingly. The order giving plaintiff leave to supply the lost declaration and the denying defendant\u2019s motion for a continuance after the trial had begun, were matters within the discretion of the court, and the case fails to show any abuse of such discretion. The motion to suppress the deposition of a witness because the title of the case was not correctly given in the notice of plaintiff to defendants,- of the taking it, was not made until after the trial had begun, and the deposition had been used in evidence without objection. That was manifestly too late.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed July 28, 1886."
  },
  "file_name": "0658-01",
  "first_page_order": 654,
  "last_page_order": 654
}