{
  "id": 435619,
  "name": "Forester and Funkhouser, Appellants, v. Guard, Siddell & Co., Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Forester & Funkhouser v. Guard, Siddell & Co.",
  "decision_date": "1823-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "74",
  "last_page": "75",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Breese 74"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "1 Ill. 74"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 135,
    "char_count": 1820,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.527,
    "sha256": "42fbdc0cc4e5ed910a6c8a0153c10e68e340d39d1670b1a97fe04b2446672926",
    "simhash": "1:88e9fc2f714e1fb9",
    "word_count": 312
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:01:48.520166+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Forester and Funkhouser, Appellants, v. Guard, Siddell & Co., Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Opinion of the Court by\nChief Justice Reynolds.\nIn this case the only error relied upon is, that the court below erred in granting a new trial. There were four reasons assigned for a new trial: 1. The verdict was against law and evidence: 2. The discovery of new testimony: 3. The verdict of the jury was predicated upon the statements of the jurors in relation to the controversy while in the jury room: 4. One of the jurors separated from the jury while deliberating.\nThe fact that the verdict was predicated upon the statements of the jurors after they withdrew, is disclosed by the affidavit of one of the plaintiffs below, founded upon the confessions of one of the jurors. This the court think improper. The statements of jurors ought not to be received to impeach their verdicts,\nThe affidavit, disclosing the discovery of material testimony, does not state the name of the witness, nor the facts he could prove. \u2022 It is therefore insufficient. An affidavit should state the facts, that the court may judge of their materiality. If tho new trial had been granted upon the affidavit alone, the court would say it was improperly granted, but as there were other grounds, to wit, that the verdict was against evidence, the court can not say there was error\u2014 on the contrary, the facts in the case seem to have warranted the interposition of the court. The judgment is therefore affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nContra, Sawyer v. Stevenson, ante, page 24.\nSee note 2, to the case of Sawyer v. Stevenson, ante, page 24,",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Chief Justice Reynolds."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Forester and Funkhouser, Appellants, v. Guard, Siddell & Co., Appellees.\nAPPEAL FROM GALLATIN.\nThe statements of jurors ought not to be received to impeach their verdict.\nAn affidavit, setting forth the discovery of new testimony, should state the name of the witness, and also the facts he can prove."
  },
  "file_name": "0074-01",
  "first_page_order": 74,
  "last_page_order": 75
}