Pirek v. Scott

206 Ill. App. 44
Appellate Court of Illinois·Decided May 31, 1917·No. Gen. No. 22,018·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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in referring to plaintiff as a “poor workingman” is not ground for reversal where, on objection, the word “poor” was withdrawn and it was admitted that plaintiff was not poor. 4.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

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

206 Ill. App. 44 (Pirek v. Scott) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Joseph D. Foreman & Co. v. Neri
285 N.E.2d 528 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1972)