Blumenfeldt v. Haisman

Appellate Court of Illinois

Blumenfeldt v. Haisman

30 Ill. App. 388, 1888 Ill. App. LEXIS 308

DecidedMarch 13, 1889

StatusPublished

This text of 30 Ill. App. 388 (Blumenfeldt v. Haisman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Blumenfeldt v. Haisman, 30 Ill. App. 388, 1888 Ill. App. LEXIS 308 (Ill. Ct. App. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Judgment for 8100 against appellant in a suit by appellee for malicious prosecution, is the subject of this appeal. Appellant contends that the court erred in admitting improper evidence. We find, however, that the evidence was part of res gestee. Ha ism-m was arrested on complaint of Biumenfeldt’s wife, and several other parties were proven to have taken a more or less conspicuous part. What took place at the time of and during the disturbance was material on the question of probable cause, and the admission thereof was necessary to an intelligent judgment in the case.

We are not prepared to say that the finding of want of probable cause was produced by a misconception of the evidence. Mor do we perceive any fault in the instructions.

The judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Judgment for 8100 against appellant in a suit by appellee for malicious prosecution, is the subject of this appeal. Appellant contends that the court erred in admitting improper evidence. We find, however, that the evidence was part of res gestee. Ha ism-m was arrested on complaint of Biumenfeldt’s wife, and several other parties were proven to have taken a more or less conspicuous part. What took place at the time of and during the disturbance was material on the question of probable cause, and the admission thereof was necessary to an intelligent judgment in the case.

We are not prepared to say that the finding of want of probable cause was produced by a misconception of the evidence. Mor do we perceive any fault in the instructions.

The judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 Ill. App. 388, 1888 Ill. App. LEXIS 308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blumenfeldt-v-haisman-illappct-1889.