{
  "id": 5253640,
  "name": "S. T. Kintz v. H. Starkey",
  "name_abbreviation": "Kintz v. Starkey",
  "decision_date": "1897-04-15",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "53",
  "last_page": "54",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "70 Ill. App. 53"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "25 Mich. 285",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mich.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 Ill. 479",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2655936
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/84/0479-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "144 Ill. 378",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3079890
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/144/0378-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 Mich. 32",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mich.",
      "case_ids": [
        1459999
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mich/63/0032-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "29 Kas. 527",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Kan.",
      "case_ids": [
        60837
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/kan/29/0527-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 Ill. App. 54",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5169590
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/63/0054-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 Ill. App. 54",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5169590
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/63/0054-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 145,
    "char_count": 1478,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.489,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15694872558207063
    },
    "sha256": "ec7ce7509b954273a625274f996963d98835aedfc42d9627acc55004baafdeaf",
    "simhash": "1:4d934af174e39cfb",
    "word_count": 271
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:32:17.018382+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "S. T. Kintz v. H. Starkey."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nExcept in the names of the parties, and the court whence this appeal comes, this case is like Lanau v. Hibbard, 63 Ill. App. 54, and to preserve the parallel the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Philip Koehler and Henry A. Wilder, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Archibald Cattell, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "S. T. Kintz v. H. Starkey.\n1. Practice\u2014Right to Address the Jury Absolute.\u2014The right of a party litigant to address the jury by his counsel is absolute. Lanau v. Hibbard, Spencer, Bartlett & Co., 63 Ill. App. 54, approved and followed.\nTranscript, from a justice of the peace. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. William G-. Ewing, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1897.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed April 15, 1897.\nPhilip Koehler and Henry A. Wilder, attorneys for appellant.\nArgument of counsel is a matter of right. The argument of a cause is as much part of the trial as the hearing of the evidence. A party to a civil suit has a right to be heard either by himself or by counsel, not only in the testimony bub also in the argument of his case. No matter how weak or inconclusive the case may be, if it is enough to present a disputed question of fact the counsel of the party has a right to present his client\u2019s case to the jury. Douglass v. Hill, 29 Kas. 527; Nedig v. Cole, 13 Neb.; Mayo v. Wright, 63 Mich. 32; Thompson v. People, 144 Ill. 378; Merideths v. People, 84 Ill. 479; Cartwright v. Clopton, 25 Mich. 285.\nArchibald Cattell, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0053-01",
  "first_page_order": 53,
  "last_page_order": 54
}