Case ID: ill-app_174/html/0251-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Fitch", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Minnie Tucker, Plaintiff in Error, v. Frederick S. Tucker, Defendant in Error.
    Gen. No. 17,327.
    Appeals and ebbobs—size of type in abstracts. A writ of error will be dismissed where both the abstracts and the briefs of the appellant are printed in smaller type than is required for abstracts by a rule of the appellate court.
    Error to the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Geobob A. Dupuy, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1911.
    Writ of error dismissed.
    Opinion filed November 7, 1912.
    
      Clyde O. Garmibe, for plaintiff in error.
    William A. Adams, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice Fitch

delivered the opinion of the court.

This writ of error was sued out to reverse a decree in which the Superior Court dismissed both the complainant’s bill for separate maintenance and the defendant’s cross-bill for divorce. Both the abstracts and briefs of plaintiff in error filed in this court are printed in smaller type than is required for abstracts by rule 19 of the Rules of Practice of this court. Experience has shown that the small pica type with leaded lines required by the rule mentioned is as small as can be safely used without injury to the eyesight, when the constant daily study of briefs and abstracts such as the volume of work in this court demands, is considered. We must insist upon a strict observance of this rule, as a matter of ordinary self-protection.

For this reason the writ of error will be dismissed.

Writ of error dismissed.