{
  "id": 5235632,
  "name": "William Mahaffey v. Henry Hoffman",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mahaffey v. Hoffman",
  "decision_date": "1897-12-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "138",
  "last_page": "139",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "74 Ill. App. 138"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 165,
    "char_count": 1947,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.543,
    "sha256": "45ec4aee64f873f50b1e1b366d7eac1dc08ed0502dbf73ce94cdb4d0b21f047c",
    "simhash": "1:8c9ee20ab8962f86",
    "word_count": 333
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:43:46.097587+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William Mahaffey v. Henry Hoffman."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Crabtree\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nAppellee sued appellant before a justice of the peace, to recover a balance he claimed was due him from appellant for wages, under a contract of hiring. On a trial by jury appellee recovered a verdict upon which judgment ivas entered for $125. On appeal to the Circuit Court the cause was tried by a jury de novo, resulting in a verdict in appellee\u2019s favor for $125.41. Upon suggestion of the trial court, appellee entered a remittitur for $25.41, whereupon a motion for new trial -was overruled and judgmenirrendered against appellant for $100.\nNot a single question of law is saved in the record for our consideration. The sole ground upon which appellant relies for a reversal is, that the verdict is contrary to the evidence.\nThe credibility of the witnesses was a'question solely for the jury.\nThere was an irreconcilable conflict in the evidence as to every material question involved in the controversy. It was for the jury to give credence to the party they thought' best entitled to it. They had better opportunities for arriving at the truth than we can possibly have by a mere examination and consideration of the record, and we are not disposed to say that we know better than they did, how the questions of fact should be decided.\nAs to the credibility of the witnesses it is evident the judgment of the judge who tried the cause agreed with that of the jury, and we see no just reason for reversing the judgment; it will therefore be affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Crabtree"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Blish & Lawson, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Charles II. Ladd, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William Mahaffey v. Henry Hoffman.\n1. Witnesses\u2014Credibility for the Jury.\u2014The credibility of a witness is a question solely for the jury.\nAssumpsit, for wages, etc. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Henry County; the Hon. Hiram Bigelow, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the May term, 1897.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 17, 1897.\nBlish & Lawson, attorneys for appellant.\nCharles II. Ladd, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0138-01",
  "first_page_order": 136,
  "last_page_order": 137
}
