{
  "id": 5204260,
  "name": "Adam Bauchens and Louis Bauchens v. Elizabeth Paulis",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bauchens v. Paulis",
  "decision_date": "1897-03-03",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "202",
  "last_page": "203",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "69 Ill. App. 202"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 134,
    "char_count": 1481,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.507,
    "sha256": "2dcb026495ec0e770f6d13c98309d3d8f5f8e2b06cb8e8a545b1fef23a408ebd",
    "simhash": "1:0b823e70328398a1",
    "word_count": 244
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:55:23.961114+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Adam Bauchens and Louis Bauchens v. Elizabeth Paulis."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr! 'Justice Green\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\n' Appellants were sued by appellee in trespass to recover from them damages for injuries to her person by them inflicted. The trial was had, the jury assessed plaintiff\u2019s damages at $500; defendants\u2019 motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were each overruled and judgment was entered against the defendants, as appears by the verdict and the record as corrected and now filed in this cause. Hence there is no ground for sustaining the objection of appellants that the judgment is against the defendant and not against the defendants.\nThe appellants also contend the evidence does not sustain the verdict. In this view we do hot concur. The evidence on behalf of the plaintiff was amply sufficient, if the jury believed the witnesses, to convict both defendants of an atrocious assault and battery causing serious bodily harm to plaintiff.\nHo good reason for reversing the judgment appears, and it is therefore affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr! 'Justice Green"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "L. H. Hite, attorney for appellants.",
      "Enloe & Ne\u00fcstadt, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Adam Bauchens and Louis Bauchens v. Elizabeth Paulis.\n1. Verdicts\u2014Sustained by the Evidenee.\u2014In this case the court holds that the evidence was amply sufficient to sustain a judgment against the defendants.\nTrespass, for an assault and battery. Appeal from the City Court of East St. Louis; the Hon. B. H. Canby, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the August term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 3, 1897.\nL. H. Hite, attorney for appellants.\nEnloe & Ne\u00fcstadt, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0202-01",
  "first_page_order": 200,
  "last_page_order": 201
}