Stoutenborough v. Miller

Appellate Court of Illinois

Stoutenborough v. Miller

188 Ill. App. 220

DecidedJuly 2, 1914

StatusPublished

This text of 188 Ill. App. 220 (Stoutenborough v. Miller) 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

Stoutenborough v. Miller, 188 Ill. App. 220 (Ill. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Thompson

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Evidence, § 365*—applicability of rule as to opinion evidence on cross-examination. The rule concerning the right of lay witnesses to give their opinion is the same whether the questions are asked on direct or cross-examination. 3. Insane persons, § 5*—admissibility of evidence. In a proceeding for the appointment of a conservator, where the issue was whether the defendant was feeble-minded, a note given to defendant by her brother shortly before the trial held admissible. 4. Instructions, § 81*—when objectionable as argumentative. On the hearing of a petition for the appointment of a conservator, seven instructions given at the request of the petitioners held improper as being argumentative in their nature in that they directed the attention of the jury to a note and mortgage given by defendant and told the jury that they should consider them with all the other evidence. 5. Instructions, § 81*—when objectionable as argumentative. In a proceeding for the appointment of a conservator, an instruction telling the jury that the proceeding was for the purpose of protecting the estate of defendant, held objectionable as argumentative.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Thompson

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Evidence, § 365*—applicability of rule as to opinion evidence on cross-examination. The rule concerning the right of lay witnesses to give their opinion is the same whether the questions are asked on direct or cross-examination. 3. Insane persons, § 5*—admissibility of evidence. In a proceeding for the appointment of a conservator, where the issue was whether the defendant was feeble-minded, a note given to defendant by her brother shortly before the trial held admissible. 4. Instructions, § 81*—when objectionable as argumentative. On the hearing of a petition for the appointment of a conservator, seven instructions given at the request of the petitioners held improper as being argumentative in their nature in that they directed the attention of the jury to a note and mortgage given by defendant and told the jury that they should consider them with all the other evidence. 5. Instructions, § 81*—when objectionable as argumentative. In a proceeding for the appointment of a conservator, an instruction telling the jury that the proceeding was for the purpose of protecting the estate of defendant, held objectionable as argumentative.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 Ill. App. 220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stoutenborough-v-miller-illappct-1914.