Huffer v. Viskovsky

Decided January 22, 1896

Appellate Court of Illinois · decided 1896-01-22

Action for Slander.—Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Richard W. Clifford, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1895. Extract from appellant’s abstract showing the circumstances under which, the attachment for the absent witness was refused: Mr. Conover: There is another witness who ought to be here, and we expect some very material testimony from her. She is one of our best witnesses. She has been subpoenaed, but is not here.

Relies on Ransom v. McCurley

Affirmed · Decided 1896-01-22

Mr. Justice Waterman

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court.

¶2The allegation in the declaration is, that the defendant, in uttering the words charged, meant that the plaintiff had stolen the goods of Blaha.

¶3Admitting 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.

¶4The 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.

¶5The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.