{
  "id": 5112215,
  "name": "Arcade Company v. Allen",
  "name_abbreviation": "Arcade Co. v. Allen",
  "decision_date": "1894-02-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "305",
  "last_page": "307",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "51 Ill. App. 305"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "3 Scam. 6",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Scam.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 350,
    "char_count": 5465,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.478,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.535145275961866e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8128481621901509
    },
    "sha256": "a572857aa260588ff8680c642ad30a293cc3e5f9bb4b4586588d350f1f32dadd",
    "simhash": "1:0923729f9c71a3c1",
    "word_count": 992
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:36:15.137575+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Arcade Company v. Allen."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe appellees sued for money due them on a building contract, and presented a final certificate from a superintending architect, pursuant to the contract between the parties.\nThe appellant vainly attempted to show on the trial that faults were in the work, nndiscoverable at the time the certificate was issued, but developed when water was let into the pipes in the building, for which deductions should be made.\nIf the defense had been proved, it would have made out a mistake- in the certificate for which proper allowance ought to be made. The court refused to admit the evidence, but the bill of exceptions is not sufficient to show error in that particular.\nAt the end o\u00ed each of the questions are the words \u201c Objected to. Sustained. Exception.\u201d Who objected to what? Who sustained what? Who excepted to what? The reiteration by this court, over and over, of the doctrine of Rogers v. Hall, 3 Scam. 6, that \u201c the appellant must be responsible for all uncertainty and omission in his bill of exceptions,\u201d is unheeded. More care in the preparation of bills of exceptions than merely inserting a transcript of the shorthand notes taken at the trial, is necessary. At the close of the evidence, the record shows further proceedings, thus:\n\u201c The Court: How, gentlemen, let me say to you that if ever there was an imposition perpetrated on a court, it was in the trial of this case. When I let you go on with this trial, I imagined that you had some defense showing injury to .your building. You have taken the time of this court and cost the county of Cook over $200, and I have no way to punish you for doing it. You have imposed on the intelligence of the jury. So far as the court is concerned, I care nothing, but if you can show $1 damage arising from the driving of the nail in this pipe, I will allow you to do it, but you have kept me here two days and have not shown it, and it is an imposition on the intelligence of the jury when you do not show a cent, one cent, of damages.' When a man comes into court as defendant or as plaintiff, he must prove something. It appears to me to be a willful and malicious attempt on the part of the defendant to delay the recovery of a just judgment in this case. The contract appears to have been completed in time; for all I know, the property was taken possession of, a-note was given to the architect, a final certificate on the completion of some minor defects, that it appears was complied with, nailing down some floors, a hole in the lead pipe was stopped. The only evidence of damage to the building was that one of the defend ants came here and swore that he noticed moisture on the ceiling, and on the plaster. How I venture to say that there never was a building in this city where less damage was suffered by the owner than in this case. You have no case. I say it is an imposition.\nMr. Cleveland: Note an exception to the remarks of the court. I have entered up my instructions, your honor, and I desire to be heard.\n(Addressing counsel:) I do not desire to hear anything more from you. (Addressing the jury:) Tou will find a verdict for the plaintiff of $827.20.\nMr. Cleveland: If the court please, I would like to say that, in the first place, we were brought in here without any copy of the counts. I knew nothing about the case in the first place, but I believe as a matter of law we have a good defense, and as for imposing on the court, I disclaim any such intention, and I desire to be heard before the jury.\nThe Court: No, sir.\nMr. Cleveland: Well, I have acted in good faith in this matter.\nThe Court: Well, it don\u2019t appear so. Tou have not proved one cent; you will admit that yourself.\nMr. Cleveland : We don\u2019t have to prove it. We claim simply this: It was their place to show a final certificate that was issued without fraud or mistake. There was a mistake.\nThe Court: Now the jury can sign that verdict.\u201d\nHere the appellant preserved a proper exception to the action of the court. Sec. 52, of Ch. 110 Practice Act, of 1872, is s \u201c Hereafter, no judge shall instruct the petit jury in any case, civil or -criminal, unless such instructions are reduced to writing.\u201d\nAnd the next preceding section is, \u201c The court, in charging the jury, shall only instruct as to the law of the case.\u201d\nThe judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Arthur B. Wells, attorney for appellant.",
      "Charles E. Pope, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Arcade Company v. Allen.\n1. Bills of Exceptions\u2014Objections and Exceptions\u2014Mow Shown. \u2014Where, in a bill of exceptions, at the end of each of the questions were the words, \u201c Objected to; sustained; exception;\u201d it was held defective, as not showing who objected or what was objected to, or who sustained, or what was sustained. The persons preparing a bill of exceptions must be responsible for all uncertainty and omissions in it.\n2. Bills of Exceptions\u2014Care in the Preparation.\u2014More care in the preparation of bills of exceptions than merely inserting a transcript of the shorthand notes taken at the trial, is necessary.\n3. Instructions\u2014Must be in Writing.\u2014Under Sec. 52, Chap. 110, R. S., it is error for the court to instruct the jury orally.\nMemorandum.\u2014Assumpsit. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. James Hoggin, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1893.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed February 13, 1894.\nThe statement of facts is contained in the opinion of the court.\nArthur B. Wells, attorney for appellant.\nCharles E. Pope, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0305-01",
  "first_page_order": 301,
  "last_page_order": 303
}