Copyright
Illinois Appellate Court.

Illinois Appellate Court Unpublished Opinions: first series (Volume Ill. App.v.281) online

. (page 14 of 39)
Online LibraryIllinois Appellate CourtIllinois Appellate Court Unpublished Opinions: first series (Volume Ill. App.v.281) → online text (page 14 of 39)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


writing, so long as suoh gifts are of the character of those shown
by the evidenoe in this case*

The Municipal Court in our opinion was in error in finding
for the defendants Fulker and Horan, Bailiff of the Municipal Court.
No good purpose would be accomplished in sending the cause back for
a new trial and, for that reason, the judgment of the Municipal
Court is reversed and judgment is entered here for the plaintiff
Jennie Glanz, and the bailiff is directed to return the property
to the plaintiff*

JUDGMENT RXVSRSEO AND JUDGMENT HERE*

HEBEL, P.J, AND HALL, J. CONCUR,



f

-fjrr?}, nn E01I brnjo'* ft.. . tl« «f«iira oli .VO?; , .ill GS .sm:iISj.Io8.

,^h-: lubis&tl "to x^lltdt&^oq

■salbntlL txl 'so-rta ui e.s^ xioiisiqo tJ?© Hi tssftaO XBQXoia.«iJ^ ecTT

Xaqioiaxjsi (kAt \o .tnaj-v^j&iJi. »fl* ,cos»i **if* tot ^fta/j leXtrJ w»n !5

\ii9qc^.q ajSif «Ttf*»i e# fc»#»v . X»cf 9if* l»ffB ^sasXO elnnsL

^ili^ai/jXq »xlJ o*



37931

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOI
Defendant In 5;rror,



LOUIS 0. GLAHZ,

Plaintiff in Error.




,/



281 loA. 606

Opinion filed June 36, 1935
MR. JUSTICE WILSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COtlHT,
Xhls is a writ of error to the Uunioipal Court to review
a judgment of that oourt in which the defendant was found guilty
of praotiolng law without a license and fined 1100*00 and costs.
The original information was unverified and charged th?t the defendant
did on the 3l8t day of January 1934» in the City of Chicago, unlaw-
fully practice law. This informsition was quashed on motion, hut
leave was given to file an amended information, in which it was
charged that the defendant on the 30th day of August, 1932, wilfully
and unlawfully drew the last will and testament of one Johannes
Frank Helm and gave legal advice to said testator concerning the
sane. This amended information was filed July 24, 1934, more than
two years after the commission of the alleged offense. It is
insisted as error that this amended charge was subject to the defense
of the statute of limitations, inasmuch as over 18 months had
elapsed between the date of the act on August 30, 1932 and the date
of the filing of the amended information on July 24, 1934.

It is also insisted as a ground for reversal that there is
no evidence that the defendajat was practicing law within the meaning
of the statute inasmuch as the evidence shows only one single Isolated
transaction and no evidence as to a charge of any fee.

Wllhelmina Reimer, a daughter of the deceased Johannes
Frank Hel*, testified that Helm, died October 7, 1933; that she
saw the defendant Glans shortly after in his office; that she had
a conversation with him, in which he said that he had her father's



N



I

O 1) •! - . O S»k < ^- "ititnlai'-i

aeei .as shj:/!, t-elxl aoialqO

,!■■ Ji *mL

Li-i b9:^ZMcio ha^ ^lilr^vtia aaw aoitsigetioluii JLsnl^ilro 9rfT
-»«Xafc' »o !0 v«*''i!3 ©rii- rii t^^i -^rGitfLel Ip x^^ ^a-^S sdt no felZ)

xXIixlXiw i c 4 to T^-sii flff'jS sfl* no jn i-x-i.^rsc sri^ ^ari* JbeyiBilo

aacn«ilot, euo lo ito»«j*d-89i}" hoji XXiv *»el sflJ wsif) xXIi/lwfiXiii;; JbflB

wi* gnlniscjHoo locfr-^raaj ivJba Xfls»X ©veg tuiH aXeH IqatI

Ofirii^ Bzota t^rXX 4*:S xXi/t* ii®li iltsmroliii b9ba^iS£, Aid's .SBiAa

«i ■!t^. .wSiX9l1:o X/8i^«IXi-^ *ii* lo floisoXoaoo Biit i9its azsQX omt

9Btte'i9h 9d.t oi }Q»l<iu9 e£w ago. jIo bfita^sm Bitii tsAi •zorr^ t£ jbft:^ai8fli

h&d siiiaoR 3X T:avo a^ doutaseal ^^noi^.i-ilmil lo »tutni6 &iit 1o

9t9b 9tii bas SCeX <C£ iBts^aA $io tOA Qiii lo si-aJb »ri* fldOwJ^cf i>seq.eX»

m^ZQi ^P-V \Lut ao aolttm'xe'lni b^bamas tit to ■^ailit 9it %9

3iTinje9iB 9rit aidiba ».bX sflXoi*o»:?TQ *3w J-ix^'foaJlsfc *»ri* ^r.ri;? eofl©l)XY8 OA
l>8tBXoeX 8XgnXa a/ro ^X^ci S'^oxfa soneX>iy9 9sit 8^ i1gju!bib.8XiX 9;tjLr;ra;^8 91^;^ %o

BdniierioU fceairso^ft sil!f ^o tfiiiiiiissiti n ^aaraXsv, .anifflX»rfXlW
9if8 iiRdt jr.eex «V k&cIo^oO bait ,aX9lJ *fixl3 f)9lii*89t ,i|Lt*H aCoatrt
JbiMi srfa ;r«i(* '.itoili:!© aid ai t9«.?. ^X^ioiia srusXi) ifajstnalsL ad* wsa
i»TSXl;t«!*i leil bfiii »ri *«d* Wf58 9rf riolxfw al ^ts.lti rfJiw noiJ/jeitarfleo ,e



2

will aztd that h« had drawn up the wlll«

San&tl P« Qiurman, a witness for the state, testified that
he was a lawyer and represented Ure. tieimer in the Probate Oourt and
that he had a talk with the defendant in whioh the defendant stated
that he had a lot of wills like the one in question and th^t this will
was perfectly all rit;,ht. This appears to be the only direct e-ridenoe
in the oase bearing on the question as to whether or not the defendant
was in the habit of practicing law*

Helen Czeoh, a witness called by the state, testified that
she was employed by the Glanz Mortgage Oompany, but that the defendant
was not interested in thPt company; that defendant had an office in
the same building; that she typed out the will at the request of
Louis 0* Ulanz and that she signed the will at the request of the
defendant as a witness*

ThS defendant testified that he did not diotate or prepare
the will, but that he gave a memorandum to one Jaeob Levy, a lawyer
who was representing him in the trial of this case, and thPt Mr. Levy
prepared the will in question and that he then gave it to Helen
Cseoh to re-oopy.

It is insisted on behalf of the state that the defendant
could have had a corrobor->tlon of this testimony by calling Lrfy as
a witness* The answer to this is obvious, inasmuch as the Supreme
Oourt had condemned the practice of lawyers testifying as witnesses
in oases where they represent one of the parties* On the other heind,
the state or the court could have called Levy, as he was present in
court, if it desired to test the statements of the defendant*

We do not believe that the statute was intended to cover a
single, isolated transaction. An occasion frequently arises where
it is impossible to get expert legal advice on the drawing of a will
and courts have upheld wills prepared both by the maker and by others



6

.Hi J ant ci; fWfi'iJb bt^ci ail 3nii# fc/ri? IIlw

ban *TjyoG a*«'(iOT'i «il* «1 lamiai: •«Til fcsJfXdRttiq^Tr fea* i9Y»r«X 9 »bw •!(
lllvr Bi&i Jflrf* baa aoi^esi/p ai sao ftflJ six I sliif "tc to£ n b&d md tJsAi

. '/si ^wi^xitOBTc*? to i-icf.eii 9xic^ al asv

•3flcf 1© #«ei/p»t BiC* *« Ili?^ ?r ^e *rit tnrf* feists anflXO ,C oiwoJ

.isXaH 0* *i »Tff»5 fldil* 9d *i5il# faftjR ebitB«0p nl IXlir 9di 6®t^q8Tq

^Yqoo-®^ 0* xfoesO

8R ^*«i snlXXjBO x^ Y«OK' -rf* *© rtoX*.^'i:0cfsnf'js)« s htsd 9iriRd blueo

e,: •OxasB.piti ^auciY'i®- si Tc3^wB«f^ ©fit -.at^ontlw b

s»e89n*ity «i*. ii«Xt^iitB»J ^j-se'itw.fli ^ -witfjwrq •ri* banraafcnoo l3i*il ^rti/oO

^tjcr-rf ^siftf-o erf* hO .8©x.tieq »)rt# lo arto tn^earpotn x^-^^* sn&dv eaaso nl

Bf^eXtc^ -^Xtflei/r <»tT: noiaso-oo fiA .aol*0PBn*5"r;f bsJfiXoBJ: ^sX^als
XX iw t? to 8XflifB«l> »ri* no ftOlYbw X.r oXdiBeo^tial ei *i



3

at his request, where an opportunity of procuring expert advloe is

lacking.

There is no erldenoe that anj fee we charged in connection

with the making of the will, other than the f^^ict that the defendant
was named as a beneficiary therein* This oould hardly be called the
charging of a fee, inasmuch as the will might have been changed at
any time in the future.

Xhe cases cited by the State, namely. People v. People ' ^
Stoolcyarde Bank, 344 111, 463, and People •% rel Courtney ▼. The
A88<n« of Real Estate Ta-xpayera of Illinois. 354 111. 102, shows a
continuous practicing of the law oyer a long period of time. '\e do
not think they are controlling in the case at bar.

The word "praotida" as defined in the dictionary, is:
"To do habitually; exercise, as a profession • • ••
The rulings of the courts of this state, holding that the
negotiation of a single sale for another is not in yiolation of the
act providing for the licensing of real estate brokers, are applicable.
It has been held repeatedly that a single transaction did not consti-
tute the doing of a brokerage business in violation of the statute.
Klllen V. Irmiter. 333 111, App. 116,

The only evidence in the record indicating that the defendant
had done other acts was the statement of the Attorney Gurman, nai|«ly,
that the defendant had stated to him that he, the defendant, had lots
of wills like that. This evidence does not definitely establish the
fact that these wllla had been prepared by the defendant at the request
of others. It is so vague and uncertain as to be lacking in the q\ialit5
of evidence upon which a conviction could be based. The action Is
criminal in its nature and the defendant would necessarily have to be
found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no evidence in the
record sufficient to support the judgment.

For the reasons stated in this opinion, the judgment of the
Uunicipal Court is reversed. JUOGMENT REVSRSEO.

HilBSL, P.J, AKO HALL, J, COlUCURe



at aoivJbjp t"i»qx» afllTiioox - to x& tnufioqcro OA 9ir9iiw ,tM»p»T aixf *j8

aci^oannop ai be^niAdo bjbw sal 7fi ^ ^' on ei 9i«riT

tC::>Anft'i9l) srijf tsdt ioeT: 9tii ^.llm erf* io 3iil;l«8t ©<f* ri^lw

t •• lb3;jfl^j[I& nose/ 9Ya».c[ ^^rflili5 Iiiv 2" -Ral ^So; _; '^Igijsdd

■■■■■■■ ' ,:-;-j: ♦ill ^e« .feiogjiix ^. ■.■-.-. - ,. U:>j^ lo »fl'88A



■"■ " Mow tifT

._-.-;r£ Qb o'X"

R:4«iX-£n ®iii'

.;g -; Jo aotititio-^^a
•jxtliivoiq tast

■ lo gcioi) 9(1* 9tXf*

ci^o 9noi> Jb£if

ax aXilw U

- C?; Ei *I ,8T6d*o lo

4. . i X^aiialTct)

jjooYOcf ^i-XXu^ baaot

jowc 9iu' 8 0* ^flfioi'ilue broovt

9A:t ^o *fl«j3S5bx;c sd* »noIrTJtao airi* rti £>9*e*t MOtaa? 9dt rcyi



:,- «7T.snol#olfc 3ri* kI b9cii'i»h 3.g ''sbifn

sdi tr-iii §al&XojG[ ^slstfe «i/i* \o e*^;/o© ^'Z"' -^
9ri^ *o noJt*fXolv ax *ofl ai t^AtooB loi
.sXcf-'oiic^s^G 91- ^giEAaintf ®^j5*«» Xj6©i lo -gclsn-ici.
-Itsnoo *oxx bib noltt>&%&fni tX^ie f iiii
#«*u*R*i3 ftri* lo fioid^'loiv ai sS9xilB£;cf . ,,

,511 .,-,':^^ .III
*£?pNT9t»A 8«f* *pf!* 3cl*s©ifi«i &«oO'

BtoX i>jsn I ^

Qrf* ffsiJ::.-f-^F-' rlr-tifiiltftfc ton r®ot^ 90fl©*>ivf

*g9i;p9T teJb »fl;

;.tll««irp »il* fix . 9rf Ot 8iS aJtB*«9t;

6i ;ii:2rJc . .-?■ acf bXcfOO act to;

:h! 7 : saaoMi hli/mr ta« >
gri* ni »on9blv© o/i ai axftrfT .trfiroi) sXd'sno



•aitT



^



PSOfLl Of TKK aXAU uf liXUiOXd^ )

!

•ART CAIiPaiU., )

n«intlff in Jirr«r. )




231 I.A. 60 7



ih«7 had b««n •tal«n, aad linlAvfuliy ftr Ills •«» ^ala and i« pf-
T«Bt the ovn^r frota mimin 9o«»*««iaji Ui«i; uj^mi trial by a jurj ti«
*•• found (t'^iity t>d •aiitarioa'i to th« uauaa of Uorrootloa for tiglit
nontiio and finod ll.'«*^» Hf Utio vrit of •rror no oooko a rovoroai.

Oofocaant ajrfaoi ino ladloinoat ohould haYo tooon quasliod
OB tho ground tioat it fallod oufl ioionUy to doaori^o tko bloycloo
allOKOd to hHttf boon otolMi; tliat tho Indiotamt aoould havo oot
out tho aako of %loyolo, tho typo, iHiottior tooy'o or 4&irl*o, and
thotr ouail»»ro«

Xho IndiotiBont vao drami in aooordanao with tho languato of
aootion as* of tho Criminal Codo, par. lo? (gahUl'o btatutoo) and
aoto out oubt van ti ally all tho elMboBta ol tno oifonoo, if tho do*
fondant vao not advitiod ao to tho Idontity of Um pxoyorty ho oculd
haTO Kovod for a bill of nariioulajro, 1 io ho failed to do. Thd
OTldonoo ahowo that dofondant ioioii Uio idOi.llty of tho tloyeloo ia
qaoBtloB ar«d had proparod hia dofouoo aooordiB|(ly.

▲ Buoh Koro aoriotto (luoatlon io vhothor tho dofondant know
at tho tiao ho roooivod tho bioyoloo that thoy «oro atolon. It ia
voll ooitlod that «uilty kaowi«dgo oa tiio fart of tho aoeuood io
oa««ntial to tho oriao of rooolTlnu otoloa proforty.

Bofoadaat tootlfiod that at tho tiao of tho »oourr««oo ha
wao eon^uotiac a bloyolo ahop on Aohlaitd uTonao for ropalriac
looko and Taouvua ovootiora, aad aloo rantiag bia>uloo} that ho had
boon oporatlac it for about tiiroo y^^aro; tttat h« had olKhtaoa



toa.A.i lo^



rsxtic



to a.






. '. *•,*;■!!* Y? ill'



ram ufAA









a.tu.O Oil ■;


't^-lCf *te ^«.A




«llt'>


-^f^ lit f


,«1tr ,;


Ml «•.







? ^-"t/.! i.i '♦AU'. *;;i,r



*..<in«it



.., t n^i i»-



J *. 'I* ««?;*«



(■f,J^ w&w



id



l^leyol*t Tor rout - t«ii LftUall* Mcyelsa «iLi«li U« ¥o«|^t froa th«
Ohiesff* Cyel* is^wtpmny, mnA !'!▼• ka»«ota which h« bought fT%m %!•-
bf»l<lt«* Ml £lffln «hl«h h« boit«Ht froa fiob<vrt Aiumua, luid t«» Fath*
fln4l*r«, vhi«h »r« th«» bloyol** In luflftlon. Hit btayolk* rental
bu«ln««« •«niii»t#« 9f pttttlna his bi«yol«0 •« tti* •14«v«ait w>4
r«>ntlii«c thaan t« pera^nn far tvttnty«riT« oants nn tiour,

\bout Uia aiMla af Attnuat ha taught tha IXgin biaynl* froa
Karmaa. About tan daya tharcaftar Hnruttta cana iit rith twa athar
lloya who Uh4 Xif t«a Pathi'indar bioyolea for nala; he inquirad af
Mamma aa to who ava«d Uta blayolaa and Hatinus itald th«»aa two boya
vara tha awnara and that thay wara hla cauaina; laf vndant %alrad
Haimva if Uim boya wara all ri($ht aad tiannua aaawwrad, ^aura" wad
irauahad far thaa. Dafandant wa.a of tha oflnlon tha two biayolaa
w%v% wartli about iXh, am ihay naadad rapairingt ha paid th** baya
lis far than, and with « halpar warkad f9T about half a day ta put
thaa ia gaad aaaditioa; thay wara than put an tha airi^waik vi^ tha
athar biayalaa far ranti about four day a or a waak Iat«r thay waara
raitalntad la aat^ tha raat of dafandaut'a bie^cXaa, all af whiah
y_^r% rad and whita. !>afandm>t daiii«4 Ui«t tha nuKbara wara alt<*ra4
or ahangod in any w«jr{ ha oayo ha i5id not Juaaw tha two J>athfiadara
wara otolan oAtil aoata daya aftarward.

i^'ra.'ioia liiathawa taotifiad tl^at Q« «aa a haipar oi d'^t vi a^t,
warkiug iA his bioyola Bhey; that ha aaw '.ha two J*atlifLndar cicyciaa;
thai tha whaala wara oat of iiaa, apo^ea aisolag, nnd &#arly all tha
■pakaa naadad tight aaiac, tiia lurk ia front of tha fraaa waa b««it and
apruns and tha paint dull aad waatuar baatan; thai ha rapaird thaai
aad abaut ona waajt. lt«t«r thay wara raptiiiitAd rid and wuita. Iha wit.
aaaa t«stiiia<J aa to aoaaidarabla aJ^»ar^aaa• in oalilnK biayalaa
aad «ava it aa hia opinion that tha ouatoaary prlaa tor tha Path*
findara in tita eondiilan thay wara in wauld ba It ta llo for aaa aa4
M ar |7 t*T tha othar; t^at tha naabaro aa tha bieyclea wara not






- , i . '-^



L«oBar4 V»(»ntira t*«tiri*d IHat 1m flUI iMk VitinAV •«ii«««i»«

* iloyoX* r«ntlag atortt, itn4 on AUffuat 81, 1954, th^jr r«ttt«»<l %h«
t*e P*tJii'loil«r ti«yol«t % ^> two boy*; that th« kl«yol«« w»r* n«t
r«turett(l. Xh« Faih/ind^r bl«yel«a in f)u«ati«B v«r* licnilfit^ ui
¥«l»A«kia4( t0 V«Mi»trtt iia4l fiftn*r, n»rtr:«ra. V<r«B»tra t4i»«iri«<l tli*t
ll* 'lid aat know h«w tin* bieyolsa get l«to poanAnaiet of dAferxlaBt.

Th«r« ««• »• rliratt er Tio«ltiT«i r*r99f ttimt 4«»f»n(<«rt hii4
knowla<!f?« tiitiX th* 1»i«yfll»» «<irt fltel»n, but tit* t^tat* arcaaa that
it vaa a raatonafcla lDfi»r#n«# fr^m. th* faate anil otr«uaiBta«>e«a \hm%
ha had guilty )in««'lA4f(«; that tha tve ^oys var« rirora nn* that «li«i
Xanrm* broutriit tlia^i to dcfeniant '« ahep HasBaa tol4 iafandaat thai
thay want't'l to stll thalr biayeXaa bAoauaa all thre* of thar w*ro
buying «n autonobllo, Vhlla tho otrauin«t<wiooa ciajr «roaoo a auaai*
oion of guilty kno'^l ad^co on tho p*rt of iafaniant, at tnoy fall
Bhort of 09nYlaoln£( bayoad • r^iarmsiblfi doubt that ha knoo thay
wora at0l«n.

fha at'^^t* arnuaa that tha jury oiittld 'jonaiifor aXao tha pro*
viouo tranaactiaa bataaan ^ofandant aii4 Hanarao mid trtm that trano-
ootion aad tha olrounotanooo attondlng tho purobaaa of tho I'ath-
flndar bio^clao eooeludo thAt dof ondant know tho bioyoioo wayo 8ial«i,

Ao Dart of ita oaao in ouiaf tho st^ta intro(iueo4 hobart Kaa*
•u«, who toatlfi«d that <« /oaguat Iftth ho o«« an &lgia bio/alo ia
tha bikoh yard of aa apurtmant bullitlnf; that ha <U4 not /.now w.eoo
it waa: tiiat h« toolc it and ra4o It avajr; that ho atopnM at dofond-
ant*o ahop tmd nakod >ii« if h* irantvd to Vay a hioyolo; dofoadant
aokad whooo it «aa and tfannua aaid it balooK'^ to hia; liafoidaat ia-
^ttirod ir hn tkiJi any proaf of thlo and offarod to go he«o with kwiauo
to oonfina tho dala of o^marohio in Kaanua: id annua tald dofandant
ao ona waa at »ia hoao; itannvio aald ho would got his aothor'o parmia-

• ten to noil tho liioyelo and tho followlag aomiag rotumod and aold









"Sit i

-0 J •« «1j






sxotiM m'ism

birr lilt

^p'v Aoo on
^ Xt»<| 0^ r\0U



It f»r ^18; Ui*l w)i*n h* •ol4 It it* •i4(n«4 m rymp*x tat put &
"fnon«y* ammm antf ftil4reat or< it. EMiBiit nd^uitttA h« h*A fttoi«a
th« Kigla 1ile>«I« vnd and ••TT«d tlA* Ia tli« •Mojitj Jail i»r tJM
th«rt. T)i« •vltfmc* tJi to Uiit traubs*eti«a vita HmmMmB vas Mickit*
t«4 0T«r thft e1ij«eti«B df defendant* ■ oouns*!,

D*f«ti4«rit t««titi«4 In dttAll «• to Ui* tran»Aotl«n vitk
Imwiu*} that h« iii«ist*4 tn»t a«ara« proluo* proaf •! o«0(«rahip
fron hl» BOtbiir; that when Hauqus rttumad tft« a«zt d«jr !>• in»
t'»n>*4 i«f9n<l*nt ti2«t n* eoMl4 not parauada niii «othar to aeaa to
tat ahop; daf andant )>a4 a aaato»ar In tha atora at tha tlsa nafta4
too Cor Jail, aai 4ar ajid»Ai IngalrtA af hlai if ha knav HAnnwia}
Car4all vcuohad far Hannua, a*jriac ia.* Jcnaw hi« and ha v»a all
rl^Ht, raid that ralylac on tlxla dafat^dant ntA ;:iitau«a aisn a
vrltine •▼Idaoalnff tha i»araf\i«a* of tha Slgia biayala. iia did aat
knour tha Xl«la biajrala hsk4 l^aan atoiaa ahan ha Hoaght tka Path-
ritiiar )»loyel«s. Ha firat knav tiila a^aa taXd b> tha paiiaa affi-
aar aa £ai>taakav flrat.

Tha avldaoaa a« ta tha purahaaa af tha migla biayela fra«
Saanuo vaa ia«e<afiat«Bt and Iti adaiaaian iraa roYaraitoXa •rr%r,
I" P»«;>?^«t ▼. gatlay . ail 111. S87» tha aoart aaya it ia aattl»4 hj
r«paat«d daelaloaa that la proaaautiana far raaalviait atal**!
praparty, tQ ahav guilty knawladgo it ia cant^atant ta prova that
tha aea.<tta4 had ao athar prior oceaalaaa raealTad atolaa praparty
froa tht aaaa t iaraa, and la ypop^a r. i^hn. WO 111. uo, it ia
ka24 oaapatant, aa tacdiag ta ahaar g Uty kaaviedga, ta ahaar that
tha aeoua«d hM on I'o mar oceaaiona raoalTa4 atolan prof arty
"thraaich tha aaaa ohaanala." Tha allagad avaara af tha l>ati)rindar
bioyolaa W9r» n«t Haaaaa kut two athar hoya. Kridanaa af prlmx
aljiiilfir traaaaatiaaa ara ooKpatant anly whaa tha dafuMlaat raoaiyaa
tha ataiaa rjroparty froa th» aaaa party %x p'tatiaa.

It waa alao izupropar to raaaiva tha OTidauaa af Jarathy



« i UC) iam 't'»»^*t A t-



i umittf






ii«i #e/



lit.



Kit' mvt*t



tlP^ <*!*■•'■



• 1 .... . :^ ,-^^^.



:<« t»a



/r„-^^5. Jtl



'i'*f':-f«Tr



r»i.t=>'3'a'



iP ■ »-jtf "* .oHT



Il0er«, wh« t*«tiri«d that ato* o«n»tf th« AlKia bicyal* atol-m lij
Hanctts, Oh* «•• p«raiitt*4 t« d*««rl1i« th» ••aAltlan af ib« bi«j«l«
•ai to ••/ that it was rotufnad to h«r Vj pallaa affioars. ihara
vat also taatinoay by pell«« efficara aa to tlia liannua tranaaatiaa,
all ff vkiloh waa prajudlolai and laaoapatant.

It aiicfot ba aald that tba oTldanoa 9f bath •ia/.nat an4 tha
dafandant aa to tha purahaaa of tha Slffln blo/ala taitdo to ajioaarata
tha dafandant froa having fe;ullty kno ladga that it vaa atolao. But
tha Bannar ia ahiah tha tranaaotlon vaa praaantod ta tha jary and
tha adalaaioa by finnnua of Xii9 thaft oould not I'ail to ba hantfaX
to tha dafandant.

Va ara af tha opinion tha Stata'a Attomay ii. dia arftuaant
to tha jury aada ttata&aata highly prajudioial to tha dafandant. Ha
arguad to tha jury that tho dafandant ha4 aaid n« apant tan yaara
In Aav Orleana and workad tha «atira tina ha wan thara. Tha i::t%ta*o
Attomay oontlnuad and aaid, "Did you notioa hla faaa «Uan 1 anowai
hln Paopla*a 2xhll:it 3, to rafraah hia aiMiory^ ha vaa going to t«^ll
yaa anyt lag la tnio court room. Ha did nat know va ha4 Infaraatiaa
nbaut hln whan ha vaa down In Jiav OrX«ana. Did yau natioa hia faaa
vhan I shevad hia Paopla*a iixhibit 3?* FlaintiJT*a axhibit 3 vaa
nat In •▼i<1anoa. lualtUar vaa thara any aTltanaa that tha tttata'a
Attornay*o oJTloa or aoyona aloa haA any infamatian about tha da-
fandant vhan ha vaa in £av orlvana. Indaad, thara is no avidanaa
that dafandant avar vaa in kav Orlaana, aitiiough thara ia ia avi-
dnnaa that ha vaa in buaineaa in u^orgia for nlna ^r tan yaara. Tha
argunant af tha Stata'a xttornay vaa built u,)on a praniaa vhioh ha4
na baala in tha aridanaa. Tha jury vould drav tha aonoluaion that
"Paopla'a Rsdilblt 3* oontaiaad oo«at lag da&a«;ing to daf«idant
ari'^anoad by tha anpraaaloa on dafandant* a ifioa vhan atiavn tha
daaunant. Tha argoaont *^a« highly iapropar and tandad to arvata
In tha nlnda of tha jury a prajudioa agaiaat tha dafandant. It ia



•*<i} J^O* til-

-lire sU 9t *%9ai



. ftl a«v All ti»tW isiAhaml



always l«nrop«r f*r ««ttns«I la argu««at to a«suA« or atat* aa faota
■at tors aot in OTldonoo aad baoo on arguaont thoroon. fooplo t .
ttJiyyua, «44 Ul. 45; fta T. ffQP^f. •» lU. n; Poob1« t. i.e,

fiflayj. 174 Ul. «oo.

Doron<4ant ocvaplJiLlna with rol'oronoo to tho inatruotiooo.
Bo oVjootiana or oxo^piieno vara aa4a to tko nirinn, of tlio inatruo*
tiona an4 oounaol I'or dafondaat did aot apaeifioally tolnt out aaj
aattoro ia oonnaotioa tnorawlth. Saetion 67 af tho Civil l'r»otioo
Aot providoa for obj^atioaa or oufutaatiena to iaatruatioot, and by
Aulo 27 of tho •tt^rano oeart it ia providad that tlia ooarl in
oriainal oaoot ahall iaatruot tha Jury in aeoordanoo with aaatian
•T of tno CiYil Fraotioo not. ^^f^itAff Ti HUllBt. >«0 UL 446.

Vor tho roaooas indioat»d tho judiK*«at ia roToraad an4 tho
oauoo rMROBdod.

mvnsn abs RxkAjKniD.

Batohatt and O'Connor, JJ, , ooneur.



-Oii^liioi 9.ti^ 't9 j|iiXvi..i .i»^ v^ 4>*jv«.'u ■*!«»*» #*u>A.; «i^»x» -jf© sintsi^oftt^o ••






HI HAim, alM kn«wn at BUiJi«MU

KAN on,

Appall ant.




VB. ) OF COOK




231 I.A. 607



SfCLXVIRBI) TMl OPUIt/.^ 0/ THW COUHT.

Patriaii Ma4Niart7« h*r«artcr oall«<l plaintiff, vaa •truok
Igr an autop»abil« ownad and drlir«n bjr d«f«cdant and di»d as a rcault
of tha injurlrs ra««W«d; his administratrix Itrou^ht suit and uyaa
trial had a Ttrdlot and Judt^«nt far IftoOO, nklch dafsndant aeska ta
tiaT* ravaraad.

TlM facts ara fairly siapla. ths aaoidsiit feurrmii DaaMsbar
f?, 1998, at abaut 11:45 P, ii,, at Ciotra a^anu*, whi^ rons narth
and south, and at or n»ar th« intsrsaeting aast and vaat atraat,
Biekana svsnuo, in Chioano. Oaf andant waa drivinc hia autotAobila
oarth on Ciesro aTsnua, tho ri^ht whatla boinf abaiat a foot saat af
th« sast rail of tha northbound straat aar track on clo ^ra; it waa
a el<^ar night; at tha aarthaaat 90mmr af uiekona and Claara waa a
lightod 6uO watt lam|i. A witnasa t«>atlfiod that it waa auff ielentlj
light for ono to eao a hunan being for ono hundrad faat on tha strait.
Ihera was no othar TOhiela or any ebstructian of sigtit ta tha narth.
Plaintiff waa upparantly walking fro<i> th* sast aida of Ciaoro toward
tho woat, at or naar tha narth eroaa-walk of Diakana aTonua; wnan
abaut fiJtooa Mid a hall faat w«at of tha oaat aurb af ciaara, ha waa
struck by dofor^danfa autou^abila, thrown ao««> diatanaa to tha nartil
and waa piokad up abaat forty«'ight faat north of tha north croon-
walk; tha colli aiaa broka ar baat tha right front hoadlight and
dantad tha right fandor af tha autoaabila.

According to tha t»ati on.v of tha daf andant he waa approach-



T 08 .A.I I :s



', »i" i!v



9B£BK






-n ■^



«i; ,0. .i-.v Hti.i J|OiTitl> 4.'.;'

i,'>. .'•^f* i japir ■^






lint ls«e •rtl
>i> -iiU St ;iii*ln tit^ t9 m

4*» 9i f>no lot MsiiX



lag th« lat«r«*«tlMi *t alitut thirty aIIcb mi taour aai 4i« a«t •••
plaintiff until h« vas vltuin ttn tr fii't««n f««t fren hia.
Pladntiff «»« taitwi to Ui* li««pital aoit ai«4 the n«kt Bornlng. A



Online LibraryIllinois Appellate CourtIllinois Appellate Court Unpublished Opinions: first series (Volume Ill. App.v.281) → online text (page 14 of 39)