{
  "id": 869035,
  "name": "Anna Huffer v. Marie Viskovsky",
  "name_abbreviation": "Huffer v. Viskovsky",
  "decision_date": "1896-01-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "94",
  "last_page": "96",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "62 Ill. App. 94"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "140 Ill. 626",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5807119
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/140/0626-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 316,
    "char_count": 5073,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.538,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.030606610655679153
    },
    "sha256": "b7291ea6c2c540cbe0e9a1433759641930e83aa386c1bb03e541b878df386ef4",
    "simhash": "1:95c121be800258e8",
    "word_count": 893
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:10:11.174453+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Anna Huffer v. Marie Viskovsky."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe allegation in the declaration is, that the defendant, in uttering the words charged, meant that the plaintiff had stolen the goods of Blaha.\nAdmitting that there is a variance between the words charged and those proven, and that the substance of the words charged was not proved, appellant failed to point out such variance upon the trial, where, by amendment of the declaration, the variance could have been removed. It is therefore too late to urge such objection here. Ransom v. McCurley, 140 Ill. 626.\nThe refusal of an attachment for a person subpoenaed as a witness by appellant, under the circumstances upon which the attachment was asked, is not a sufficient reason for reversing this judgment.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. A. Conover, attorney for appellant.",
      "J. F. Kohout, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Anna Huffer v. Marie Viskovsky.\n1. Variance\u2014Must be Pointed out in the Court Beloio.\u2014-Where a party fails to point out a variance on the trial below so that it might have been cured by amendment of the pleadings he can not urge the objection in the Appellate Court.\n2. Attachment for Witness\u2014Failure to Issue, not Cause for Reversal.\u2014The refusal of the court to order an attachment for a witness, under the circumstances upon which it was asked, is not a sufficient reason for reversing the judgment.\nAction for Slander.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Richard W. Clifford, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1895.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed January 22, 1896.\nExtract from appellant\u2019s abstract showing the circumstances under which, the attachment for the absent witness was refused:\nMr. Conover: There is another witness who ought to be here, and we expect some very material testimony from her. She is one of our best witnesses. She has been subpoenaed, but is not here.\nMr. Kirkland: We are ready to show that she is not here, by advice and conspiracy of this woman, Mrs. Viskovsky. We are prepared to prove that these people kept her away from this court room.\nThe Court: When did you find out she was told not to be here ?\nA. (By Mr. Huffer). Yesterday morning.\nMr. Huffer took the stand at the direction of the court, and being first duly sworn, testified as follows:\nThe Court:\nQ. When did you serve the subpoena on this witness ? A. Last Saturday.\nQ. What did she say ? A. She said she would come.\nQ. What did you say about money to her? A. I handed her one dollar and ten cents, and she didn\u2019t want it, and gave it back to me, and I told her she should keep it. And she took the one dollar and ten cents, and gave it to me back and said she would come.\nQ. When was that? A. Last Saturday.\nQ. Well, she hasn\u2019t been around here at all? A. No, sir; and Mrs. Huffer was there yesterday morning, and when she paid the cash to her, she said she wouldn\u2019t come. Now, whatever was talked about, Mrs. Huffer can say.\nThe motion for attachment was overruled on the ground that it came too late.\nStatement of the Case.\nThis was an action originally brought in the Circuit Court of Cook County by Marie Yiskovsky against Anna Huffer, in a plea of trespass on the case, for damages alleged to have been occasioned to the plaintiff by virtue of the utterance of a certain slander by the defendant, on the 14th day of June, 1892.\nIn the Circuit Court the jury found the defendant guilty and assessed the damages at $100, whereupon a judgment was entered in the Circuit Court for said amount, from which judgment the defendant Huffer appealed to this court.\nThe evidence on the trial by the respective parties is of a very conflicting nature.\nAppellant\u2019s brief contains the following:\n\u201c First. There is a variance between the slander alleged in the declaration and that proven on the trial.\nSecond. The Circuit Court erred in overruling the motion for an attachment to issue to bring in one of the witnesses of the defendant, who had not attended court in compliance with the subpoena.\u201d\nAs to the first of these reasons, the slander mentioned in the declaration says, \u201c your mother stole meat and sausages in Blaha\u2019s, and Blaha had to run \u25a0 after her onto the sidewalk and take it from her.\u201d How, in this expression, the essence of the slander is contained in the words, \u201c your mother stole meat and sausages in Blaha\u2019s,\u201d and the only point in the testimony of the plaintiff\u2019s witnesses, where there is a substantial similarity, is in their testimony as to the expression that \u201c your mother stole meat and sausages \u25a0from, Blaha.\u201d All of plaintiff\u2019s witnesses used the expression \u201cfrom, Blaha, \u2019\u2022\u2019 instead of \u201c in Blaha?s,\u201d changing both the form, of the preposition and the case of the noun. The expression \u201c in Blaha?s \u201d does not necessarily imply that the defendant stole Blaha\u2019s. meat, but the meat may have belonged to any other person; whereas the phrase \u201cfrom, Blaha \u201d would imply that Blaha was the owner of the meat alleged to have been stolen and is manifestly a different charge from that contained in the words alleged in the declaration.\nW. A. Conover, attorney for appellant.\nJ. F. Kohout, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0094-01",
  "first_page_order": 90,
  "last_page_order": 92
}