{
  "id": 5337001,
  "name": "Thomas E. Clark v. Aaron Hatfield",
  "name_abbreviation": "Clark v. Hatfield",
  "decision_date": "1878-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "440",
  "last_page": "441",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "88 Ill. 440"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "10 Wend. 119",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Wend.",
      "case_ids": [
        2012961
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/wend/10/0119-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Johns. 180",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Johns.",
      "case_ids": [
        2129883
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/johns/3/0180-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 115,
    "char_count": 1318,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.601,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.395996621871684e-08,
      "percentile": 0.44256383287210954
    },
    "sha256": "851b235b887da0bc8e3841326b7f8baae7dcd63b6b50442ad171ac67df495326",
    "simhash": "1:fc6150d45d34ad01",
    "word_count": 229
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:58:19.170928+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Thomas E. Clark v. Aaron Hatfield."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Sheldon\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis ivas an action for slander, wherein a verdict and judgment Avere rendered for the defendant. \u2022\nThe only reason urged for a reversal of the judgment is, that the verdict is against the evidence.\nThe general rule is, that in penal actions, and in actions for a libel or defamation, and other actions vindictive in their nature, a hbav trial will not be granted merely because the verdict is against the Aveight of evidence. Jarvis v. Hathaway, 3 Johns. 180; Rundell v. Butler, 10 Wend. 119; Townshend on Slander, 494-5, 2d ed.\nThe case before us Aras not one of an aggravated character, and Ave see no cause why the general rule should not be applied.\nThe judgment will be affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Sheldon"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Whitney & Hoagland, Mr. H. W. Masters, and Mr. T. W. McNeely, for the appellant.",
      "Mr. N. W. Branson, and Mr. W. R. Edgar, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Thomas E. Clark v. Aaron Hatfield.\nNew triai\u2014general rule in actions for libel, slander, etc. The general rule is, that in penal actions, and in actions for libel or defamation, and other actions vindictive in their nature, a new trial will not be granted merely because the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Menard county; the Hon. Lyman Lacey, Judge, presiding.\nMessrs. Whitney & Hoagland, Mr. H. W. Masters, and Mr. T. W. McNeely, for the appellant.\nMr. N. W. Branson, and Mr. W. R. Edgar, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0440-01",
  "first_page_order": 440,
  "last_page_order": 441
}