{
  "id": 2452782,
  "name": "M. C. Jennings v. William C. Heinroth; Same v. John A. Bartine",
  "name_abbreviation": "Jennings v. Heinroth",
  "decision_date": "1897-04-15",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "664",
  "last_page": "666",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "71 Ill. App. 664"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 184,
    "char_count": 2742,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.532,
    "sha256": "79f2341f1d84805a1b61a0320b2da508d56818a57892426c6992c560b3091518",
    "simhash": "1:1a23a5ba245392f4",
    "word_count": 487
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:20:26.715064+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "M. C. Jennings v. William C. Heinroth. Same v. John A. Bartine."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the -opinion op the Court.\nEach of these suits was an action for malicious prosecution, the ad damnum in each being $10,000.\nIt is said that a petition for a change of venue was filed in each, upon which no order was made.\nAs neither petition was verified, each was properly disregarded.\nA trial was had in each, in the absence of the defendant, appellant.\nAs nothing was presented to the court below showing why a trial should not be had, the court properly proceeded in the absence of appellant.\nEach cause was at issue, replications having been filed to the pleas of appellant.\nEach bill of exceptions shows that evidence was heard at the trial, and each contains an excuse by appellant (inability to obtain the shorthand notes) for not inserting the same in the bill.\nThe instruction given in each case was in accordance with the law.\nThat the same jurors who had rendered a verdict in the case of Bartine v. Jennings were sworn to and did try and render a verdict in the cause of Heinroth v. Jennings is immaterial. Ho objection to such trial or to any juror was made.\nIt does not appear, as is urged, that the jurors sworn were not those who\" rendered the verdicts. The fact that the clerk spelled the names of three jurors differently from what such jurors thought was the proper mode, does not establish that the persons actually signing the verdict were not those actually sworn and trying.\nAs a verdict and judgment of but $100 was rendered in each case, the appellant, defendant in ex parte trials of malicious prosecution cases, appears to have had a fortjinate escape.\nEach judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "M. JO. Jennings, appellant, pro se.",
      "ISTo appearance for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "M. C. Jennings v. William C. Heinroth. Same v. John A. Bartine.\n1. Venue\u2014Petition for Change of, Should be Verified. \u2014A petition for a change of venue which is not verified by the affidavit of the petitioner may properly be disregarded.\n2. Jurors\u2014Questions as to Competency of, Should be Raised in the Trial Court.\u2014That the same jurors were allowed to pass on both of the cases decided in this opinion is held to be immaterial, as no objection to such a course, or to any juror was made.\n3. Same\u2014Errors in Spelling the Names of, Immaterial.\u2014The fact that the clerk of a court spelled the names of jurors differently from the way such jurors thought was the proper mode does not establish that the persons actually signing the verdict were not those who were sworn to, and did try the case.\nTrespass on the Case, for a malicious prosecution. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Francis Adams, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1897.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 15, 1897.\nM. JO. Jennings, appellant, pro se.\nISTo appearance for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0664-01",
  "first_page_order": 662,
  "last_page_order": 664
}