{
  "id": 5255578,
  "name": "Harriet D. Howard v. Matilda Tedford",
  "name_abbreviation": "Howard v. Tedford",
  "decision_date": "1897-07-26",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "660",
  "last_page": "661",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "70 Ill. App. 660"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "51 Ill. App. 375",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "107 Ind. 567",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ind.",
      "case_ids": [
        1309567
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ind/107/0567-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "62 Ia. 676",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Iowa",
      "case_ids": [
        8665659
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/iowa/62/0676-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 Ia. 549",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Iowa",
      "case_ids": [
        2337281
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/iowa/58/0549-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "33 Ill. App. 317",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4992288
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/33/0317-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 244,
    "char_count": 3105,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.528,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.1807333819305676e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7722720513821462
    },
    "sha256": "b55ee49beb40b80bcd7fa6bff9da3c0af8245f2f8e6b6ba25dcdcddf7ed979ac",
    "simhash": "1:7a3046366e6491ee",
    "word_count": 539
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:32:17.018382+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Harriet D. Howard v. Matilda Tedford."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Sears\ndelivered the opinion op the Court.\nThis was an action to recover an amount alleged to be due appellee for wages.\nThe evidence presented a case proper for submission to a jury, and in the absence of a prejudicial error, their finding should not be disturbed.\nThere are two errors assigned:\n1st. That the trial court erred in excluding answers to two questions put by counsel for appellant to one Howard, a witness.\nThat this ruling was erroneous can not be urged here, for counsel neglected to make known by proffer or otherwise, what he would prove by the answers sought. The trial court could not pass upon the relevancy or materiality of the testimony excluded upon the motion for a new trial; nor can this court determine that its exclusion was in any degree prejudicial to appellant.\nIn Gaffield v. Scott, 33 Ill. App. 317, this court has said : \u201c There was no offer made by counsel, and no statement to the court of what he expected the witness would answer to such questions. * * * We must know what appellant claims the answers would be, before we can determine that it was error to exclude them. Jenks v. Knotts, 58 Ia. 549; Vatow v. Diehl, 62 Ia. 676; Mergenthem v. The State, 107 Ind. 567; Stanley v. Smith, 15 Oregon, 505;\u201d also Giddings v. McCumber, 51 Ill. App. 375. 2d. The other error assigned is the refusal of the court to permit counsel for appellant to read from the affidavit, filed with the declaration, and comment upon the same in closing argument.\nThe authorities cited by counsel sustain their contention that such ruling would in general be error. Yet, if it be error in this case, it is not ground for reversal; for the only legitimate purpose for which the affidavit might have been used in argument, viz., as bearing upon the question of amount due, was precluded by the fact that there was no contest whatever upon the question of amount. Appellant\u2019s counsel, in effect, stated to the jury that there would be no contest as to amount, and that the only question submitted would be that of liability.\nIt does not appear that the affidavit was made by any litigant or witness in the case. The ruling could not have worked harm to appellant. The judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Sears"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Schintz & Ives, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Moses, Eosenthal & Kennedy, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Harriet D. Howard v. Matilda Tedford.\n1. Practice\u2014Exclusion of Evidence as Error\u2014Showing Necessary. \u2014The exclusion of evidence can not be held to be error, unless it is shown that injury resulted therefrom, and to show injury by the exclusion of evidence, the facts proposed to be proved must appear.\n2. Trials\u2014Reading from the Pleadings in Argument.\u2014A refusal by the trial court to allow defendant\u2019s attorney to read from the affidavit filed with the declaration and comment thereon in closing argument is not error calling for a reversal, where there was no contest as to the amount due.\nAssumpsit, on the common counts. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Charles G. Neely, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1897.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed July 26, 1897.\nSchintz & Ives, attorneys for appellant.\nMoses, Eosenthal & Kennedy, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0660-01",
  "first_page_order": 660,
  "last_page_order": 661
}