Huffer v. Viskovsky

Appellate Court of Illinois

Huffer v. Viskovsky

62 Ill. App. 94, 1895 Ill. App. LEXIS 384

DecidedJanuary 22, 1896

StatusPublished

This text of 62 Ill. App. 94 (Huffer v. Viskovsky) 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

Huffer v. Viskovsky, 62 Ill. App. 94, 1895 Ill. App. LEXIS 384 (Ill. Ct. App. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Waterman

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The allegation in the declaration is, that the defendant, in uttering the words charged, meant that the plaintiff had stolen the goods of Blaha.

Admitting that there is a variance between the words charged and those proven, and that the substance of the words charged was not proved, appellant failed to point out such variance upon the trial, where, by amendment of the declaration, the variance could have been removed. It is therefore too late to urge such objection here. Ransom v. McCurley, 140 Ill. 626.

The refusal of an attachment for a person subpoenaed as a witness by appellant, under the circumstances upon which the attachment was asked, is not a sufficient reason for reversing this judgment.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

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