Case ID: ill-app_69/html/0060-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Waterman", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Maurice Weill v. P. H. Cornell.
    1. Evidence—Objections to, Should be Speaijtc.—Specific objections should be made in the trial court to the introduction of evidence if the propriety of its introduction is to be questioned on appeal.
    Assumpsit, on a contract of employment. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Richard W. Clieeoed, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1896.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed March 8, 1897.
    Statement oe the Case.
    This is an appeal from a judgment against the appellant (defendant below) on a certain alleged contract of employment.
    Martin J. Isaacs, attorney for appellant.
    
      Wilber, Eldridge & Alden, attorneys for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Waterman

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The principal contention of appellant is, that a witness was improperly permitted to testify to the contents of a written contract of employment.

Appellant’s objection tp such testimony was general only. The objection should have been specific; the matter of the testimony was competent. Norton v. Dow, 5 Gil. 459; Swift v. Whitney, 20 Ill. 144; Wright v. Smith, 82 Ill. 527; Cox v. Gerkin, 38 Ill. App. 340; Conway v. Case, 22 Ill. 127.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.