{
  "id": 5180375,
  "name": "Arthur Jordon Co. v. John T. Covill",
  "name_abbreviation": "Arthur Jordon Co. v. Covill",
  "decision_date": "1896-06-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "418",
  "last_page": "419",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "65 Ill. App. 418"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 255,
    "char_count": 2745,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.433,
    "sha256": "90be15c8637dfffda5ca5c87f868ad9ffeb4b6aac1f9d1d0adce5a21e29b30cb",
    "simhash": "1:14ea7cba73778a28",
    "word_count": 462
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:04:10.605056+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Arthur Jordon Co. v. John T. Covill."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Pleasants\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nAppellant was extensively engaged in the egg and poultry trade, having its headquarters at Indianapolis, with places of business and managers in charge over a wide extent of territory. According to a contract between the parties dated April 30, 1891, under seal, and sufficiently exacting, appellee entered its employ as such manager at Greenup, in Cumberland county, 111., for a period of twelve months from its date, at a salary of ten dollars per week.\nJust eight and a half weeks before the expiration of the year he was discharged, and for the rest of the time was unable to find employment, though he diligently sought it. Thereupon he brought this suit before a justice of the peace, which resulted, on appeal, in judgment upon a verdict for $85 damages and for costs. A motion for a new trial was interposed, overruled and exception duly taken.\nThe case went to the jury upon the single and uncomplicated \u25a0 question whether there was reasonable cause for his discharge.\n\"We have not examined the record, because the abstract, though meager, shows evidence amply sufficient to support the verdict. Some of it comes from witnesses called by the defendant. Any discussion of it, or comjjarison of the weight of the <pro and the con, would be useless. The only alleged error in respect to the evidence is the exclusion of what was offered to prove unfriendly conduct of appellee after his discharge, which was clearly proper.\nIt appears that very soon after that event a rival poultry house in the town ceased to do business, and its proprietor was appointed to succeed appellee, which the jury may have believed had much to do with the complaints against him.\nErrors are also assigned upon the giving of instructions asked by the plaintiff, and modification of some asked by the defendant; but in view of all the evidence and apparent merits, we are of opinion that these, if not strictly accurate, did not amount to errors which the courts often characterize as \u201c reversible.\u201d\nThe judgment will therefore be affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Pleasants"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. S. Hall and James W. Craig, attorneys for appellant",
      "P. A. Brady, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Arthur Jordon Co. v. John T. Covill.\nI. Appellate Court Practice\u2014When the Court will not Examine the Record.\u2014When the case depends upon the finding of the jury upon a question of fact, and the abstract of the appellant shows evidence amply sufficient to support the verdict, the court will affirm the judgment without looking into the record.\nAssumpsit.\u2014Discharge without cause. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cumberland County; the Hon. Silas Z. Landes, Judge, presiding. Heal'd in this court at the November term, 1895.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 6, 1896.\nJ. S. Hall and James W. Craig, attorneys for appellant\nP. A. Brady, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0418-01",
  "first_page_order": 414,
  "last_page_order": 415
}