{
  "id": 2451328,
  "name": "William G. Cooke v. Emma L. Cooke",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cooke v. Cooke",
  "decision_date": "1894-02-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "663",
  "last_page": "664",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "71 Ill. App. 663"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 236,
    "char_count": 2868,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.516,
    "sha256": "62ccdb92fdf91005ad704523b25744a79db92e38c1efba81e6b3a75dcbce5982",
    "simhash": "1:5965251cc4aa1650",
    "word_count": 501
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:20:26.715064+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William G. Cooke v. Emma L. Cooke."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "He. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion on the Court.\nThe appellee filed this bill for a divorce from the appellant charging him, inter alia, with adultery. This charge the court found to be true. The only question presented by the brief of the appellant is whether that finding is consistent with the evidence.\nThat these parties are still young\u2014that for four or five years before the trial, between them \u201c the rites mysterious of connubial love \u201d had been suspended\u2014that he was much in the habit of spending his evenings in not infrequent drinks, billiards, and attending the theatres\u2014is abundantly shown by the record.\nThe charge of adultery rests mainly\u2014indeed it may be said wholly\u2014upon the testimony of the appellee, two detectives, a girl who did the housework for these parties, and one lawyer not connected with this case, who all say (they being specially engaged in watching) that on the night of January 27, 1892, the appellant went to a house (we will not make this opinion a directory) a little after eleven o\u2019clock, and was there seen with a woman lightly clad\u2014 though the witnesses differ in describing the color and name of the garment\u2014seated on his lap.\nThe going to the house is not denied, but the woman, as well as the inferred character of the house, is denied by the appellant and several witnesses. And four of these witnesses for the appellee and one other for her, testify that the appellant left the house the next morning between nine and half past nine o\u2019clock, while he and his witnesses say that he remained in the house but a few minutes.\nOther visits to other houses were alleged and admitted, but the duration of the stay denied. One being accounted for on the plea that the appellant knew that he was being followed and wanted to, but did not, discover by whom\u2014 and the others, to places whose proprietors were feminine, as being business calls, in his professional character as a lawyer, made at convenient hours shortly before midnight, except one, which was ended as early as nine o\u2019clock.\nOn such testimony,, delivered orally in the presence of the judge of the Circuit Court, his decision as to where the truth lay can not be questioned, and the decree must be affirmed.,",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "He. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Barnum, Humphrey & Barhum, attorneys for appellant.",
      "E. M. Williams and F. W. Blair, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William G. Cooke v. Emma L. Cooke.\n1. Adultery\u2014Charge of, Held Sustained by the Evidence. \u2014The court discusses the evidence in this case and holds that on such evidence delivered orally in the presence of the trial judge, his decision as to where the truth lies can not be questioned, and that the decree for divorce on the ground of adultery must be affirmed.\nDivorce.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon, Lorin C. Collins, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1893.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed February 1, 1894\nBarnum, Humphrey & Barhum, attorneys for appellant.\nE. M. Williams and F. W. Blair, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0663-01",
  "first_page_order": 661,
  "last_page_order": 662
}