{
  "id": 5088302,
  "name": "Athanas Hoffman v. G. E. Wetzel",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hoffman v. Wetzel",
  "decision_date": "1895-03-23",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "193",
  "last_page": "194",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "58 Ill. App. 193"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 152,
    "char_count": 1688,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.511,
    "sha256": "8ce030587e9cc88fc77117e2c19a0be511ba24bf38c8855500491fd3d70af2f4",
    "simhash": "1:dd8409a01e3023a0",
    "word_count": 281
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:52:30.003237+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Athanas Hoffman v. G. E. Wetzel."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Scofield\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThis suit was brought by appellee to recover from appellant a balance of $92.25, alleged to be due for goods sold and delivered. Appellee recovered a judgment for the full amount claimed and appellant brings the case to this court by appeal, alleging in his brief, as the only ground for reversal, that the verdict is not warranted by the evidence.\nTo justify interference by this court on this ground, the verdict must be manifestly against the weight of the evidence. But a careful reading of the record impresses us with the belief that the verdict is justified by the evidence. True, the controversy must be decided upon the testimony of the two parties as to the main facts of the case; but appellant\u2019s manner of testifying, which is sometimes evasive, and sometimes impudent, discredits his testimony sufficiently to justify the jury in finding against him. A witness who refuses to answer proper questions, propounded not only by his opponent\u2019s attorney, but also by the court, can not complain if his stubbornness should be regarded as impeaching his truthfulness.\nThere is no error in the record, and the judgment is therefore affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Scofield"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Cyrus L. Cook and E. Breese Glass, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Travo cs & Warnock, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Athanas Hoffman v. G. E. Wetzel.\n1. Verdict\u2014When Not to be Disturbed.\u2014A verdict will not be set aside unless it is manifestly against the weight of the evidence.\nAssumpsit, for goods sold and delivered. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Madison County; the Hon. George W. Wall, Judge, presiding. Submitted at the August term, 1894.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 23, 1895.\nCyrus L. Cook and E. Breese Glass, attorneys for appellant.\nTravo cs & Warnock, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0193-01",
  "first_page_order": 189,
  "last_page_order": 190
}