{
  "id": 5100618,
  "name": "S. A. Willard et al. v. Nina Petitt",
  "name_abbreviation": "Willard v. Petitt",
  "decision_date": "1894-03-26",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "257",
  "last_page": "258",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "54 Ill. App. 257"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "81 Ill. 432",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2670299
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/81/0432-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "13 Ill. 341",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2581451
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/13/0341-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "33 Ill. App. 36",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4991715
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/33/0036-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "71 Ill. 83",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5311780
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/71/0083-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 201,
    "char_count": 2558,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.509,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.207966869300525e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3274650375369375
    },
    "sha256": "87763fdcd6c468a4369b8e5297631a8441c1b90815e64fdb5a42e0dafd311242",
    "simhash": "1:9f08723b3e738cda",
    "word_count": 430
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:49:51.601388+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "S. A. Willard et al. v. Nina Petitt."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe plaintiff in error was a married woman at the time of the trial, and her husband and she were jointly sued in an action for a malicious prosecution. Before verdict the case was discontinued as to him. When the case was called for trial she moved for a continuance, because the state of his health prevented him from attending. The affidavits stated that she expected to prove by him \u201c that the grievances complained of * * * were justifiable, and were committed, if at all, upon reasonable and justifiable grounds;\u201d and that the attorney was \u201c familiar with the proposed defense, * * * believes it to be a good and valid defense, * * * can not safely proceed to the trial of said cause \u201d without the presence of the husband, who was seventy-five years old, and considerably infirm.\nThere was no error in denying the motion. All that the affidavits stated were mere conclusions, not facts, f-rom which the court could determine whether' his presence could be of benefit to the defendants. Schnell v. Rothbarth, 71 Ill. 83; Waarich v. Winter, 33 Ill. App. 36.\nThe instructions were not excepted to. We have, therefore, no question before us as to them. Martin v. People, 13 Ill. 341.\nWe can not go over the two hundred and sixty-two typewritten pages of evidence taken on the trial, to justify our conclusion that upon that evidence the question whether the plaintiff in error maliciously, and without probable cause, repeatedly prosecuted the defendant in error on a charge of larceny, was such a question as -the verdict of a jury is final upon. The evidence is conflicting and irreconcilable. \u201c The credibility of witnesses is for the jury.\u201d Clevenger v. Curry, 81 Ill. 432.\nWhether anybody, and if anybody, who, told the truth upon the trial was for the jury to determine.\nThere is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "L. M. Shreve, attorney for plaintiff in error.",
      "Masterson & Haft, attorneys for defendants in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "S. A. Willard et al. v. Nina Petitt.\n1. Continuance\u2014Insufficient Affidavit.-\u2014It is not error to deny a motion for a continuance founded upon an affidavit which states mere conclusions, and not facts from which the court can determine whether the presence of an absent witness would be of benefit to the defendant.\nMemorandum.\u2014Action for malicious prosecution. Error to the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Francis Adams, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1894,\nand affirmed.\nOpinion filed March 26, 1894.\nThe opinion states the case.\nL. M. Shreve, attorney for plaintiff in error.\nMasterson & Haft, attorneys for defendants in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0257-01",
  "first_page_order": 255,
  "last_page_order": 256
}