{
  "id": 5233110,
  "name": "John H. McBride v. Mary P. Griffin",
  "name_abbreviation": "McBride v. Griffin",
  "decision_date": "1871-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "227",
  "last_page": "228",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "59 Ill. 227"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 168,
    "char_count": 2236,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.512,
    "sha256": "a18d94690ce25e6d1f08a11e9d2f8e24c4b83dad407cd1a40f7e088c02029366",
    "simhash": "1:9bc75aa97c1a6608",
    "word_count": 380
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:58:50.324126+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John H. McBride v. Mary P. Griffin."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam:\nA judgment Avas rendered against appellant, beloAv, for $124.19.\nAccording to the testimony of appellee, unchanged by any other evidence in her favor, her account Avas $332.65; and the payment made to her amounted to $223.26. The largest amount for AA'hich judgment could have been rendered, Avas $108.69. The judgment is therefore erroneous.\nThere was also error in refusing to hear the communication, from appellant to appellee, through the foreman of the former, in relation to the board of certain persons, avIio might fail to Avork for appellant.\nThe communication and reply might not have been material, but the relevancy could not be determined without the admission of the evidence.\nThe controversy was in regard to the board of certain persons. If the communication elicited a reply, it was proper that the jury should have heard both, and considered' them, under the instructions of \u00a3he court.\nThe judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.\nJudgment reversed.\u2022",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. G. W. Henry, for the appellant.",
      "Mr. W. Stoker, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John H. McBride v. Mary P. Griffin.\nEvidence\u2014of communications between parties. In an action to recover for the board of the defendant and his hired hands, it is competent for the defendant to prove a communication from him to the plaintiff, in respect to the board of such of his hands \u00a1.s might fail to work for him.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Clay county; the Hon. E. S. Canby, Judge, presiding.\nThis was an action of assumpsit, brought by Mary P. Griffin against John H. McBride.\nThe action was brought upon an account for the board of the defendant, and his hired hands avIio Ai\u2019ere Avorking upon a bridge \"which the defendant was engaged in building. On the trial the defendant called a witness named Bughti, who Avas his foreman on the Avork during the absence of the defendant, and asked him to state a communication he made to the plaintiff from the defendant, respecting those persons who failed to Avork for a day or two, or longer, for the defendant. On the objection of the plaintiff, \"the court ruled that the question \u2022should not be answered, and the defendant excepted.\nThe trial resulting in a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant appealed.\nMr. G. W. Henry, for the appellant.\nMr. W. Stoker, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0227-01",
  "first_page_order": 231,
  "last_page_order": 232
}