Doyle v. Kuchar

Appellate Court of Illinois

Doyle v. Kuchar

57 Ill. App. 375, 1894 Ill. App. LEXIS 299

DecidedJanuary 28, 1895

StatusPublished

This text of 57 Ill. App. 375 (Doyle v. Kuchar) 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

Doyle v. Kuchar, 57 Ill. App. 375, 1894 Ill. App. LEXIS 299 (Ill. Ct. App. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

Mb. Presiding Justice Waterman

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This was a proceeding under the statute concerning bastardy. The jury having found appellant to be the father, etc., he moved for a new trial, and in support of such motion filed an affidavit setting forth that one Clark, for whom before trial he (affiant) had made earnest and ineffectual search, was, as he has since learned, at Hot Springs, Arkansas, whither, to the best of appellant’s belief, said .Clark went for the purpose of evading arrest as the father of the child of Annie linchar. This affidavit is in effect that affiant believes that said Clark, suspecting himself, went away to avoid arrest.

The evidence, if produced, would not be admissible, and if admissible, by no means conclusive, and not such as entitled appellant to a new trial. The judgment of the Criminal Court is affirmed.

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

Mb. Presiding Justice Waterman

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This was a proceeding under the statute concerning bastardy. The jury having found appellant to be the father, etc., he moved for a new trial, and in support of such motion filed an affidavit setting forth that one Clark, for whom before trial he (affiant) had made earnest and ineffectual search, was, as he has since learned, at Hot Springs, Arkansas, whither, to the best of appellant’s belief, said .Clark went for the purpose of evading arrest as the father of the child of Annie linchar. This affidavit is in effect that affiant believes that said Clark, suspecting himself, went away to avoid arrest.

The evidence, if produced, would not be admissible, and if admissible, by no means conclusive, and not such as entitled appellant to a new trial. The judgment of the Criminal Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 Ill. App. 375, 1894 Ill. App. LEXIS 299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doyle-v-kuchar-illappct-1895.