Pirek v. Scott

Appellate Court of Illinois

Pirek v. Scott

206 Ill. App. 44

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedMay 31, 1917

DocketGen. No. 22,018

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 206 Ill. App. 44 (Pirek v. Scott) 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

Pirek v. Scott, 206 Ill. App. 44 (Ill. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Goodwin

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Witnesses, § 279*—what is admissible to contradict witness. A letter written by a witness which tended to contradict him, held properly admitted. 3. Appeal and error, § 1514*—when improper remarles of counsel are harmless error. In an action to recover money loaned, the act of plaintiff’s counsel in referring to plaintiff as a “poor workingman” is not ground for reversal where, on objection, the word “poor” was withdrawn and it was admitted that plaintiff was not poor. 4. Appeal and error, § 1514*—when error in conduct of counsel is harmless. Where a reference by plaintiff’s counsel to defendant’s witness as a “liar” is objected to and on defendant’s motion is stricken from the record, there is no reversible error.

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

Mr. Justice Goodwin

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Witnesses, § 279*—what is admissible to contradict witness. A letter written by a witness which tended to contradict him, held properly admitted. 3. Appeal and error, § 1514*—when improper remarles of counsel are harmless error. In an action to recover money loaned, the act of plaintiff’s counsel in referring to plaintiff as a “poor workingman” is not ground for reversal where, on objection, the word “poor” was withdrawn and it was admitted that plaintiff was not poor. 4. Appeal and error, § 1514*—when error in conduct of counsel is harmless. Where a reference by plaintiff’s counsel to defendant’s witness as a “liar” is objected to and on defendant’s motion is stricken from the record, there is no reversible error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 Ill. App. 44, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pirek-v-scott-illappct-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack