Case ID: ill-app_204/html/0195-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Dever", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

City of Chicago, Defendant in Error, v. Frank Noonan, Plaintiff in Error. City of Chicago, Defendant in Error, v. Charles Delmar, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 22,519.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Gen. No. 22,520.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Sheridan E. Fry, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed February 19, 1917.
    Statement of the Case.
    Complaints by the City of Chicago, plaintiff, against Frank Noonan, defendant, and by the City of Chicago, plaintiff, against Charles Dehnar, defendant, charging violations of section 2012 of the Municipal Code of Chicago relating to disorderly conduct. From a judgment of conviction and fine of one hundred dollars in each case, defendants severally bring error, and the cases are consolidated.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 29
      
      —right of Appellate Court to take judicial notice of municipal ordinance. The Appellate Court is not required or authorized to take judicial notice of a municipal ordinance.
    2. Municipal corporations, § 867*—when judgment for violation of municipal ordinance should he affirmed. A judgment for violation of a municipal ordinance should he affirmed where no information as to the provisions of such ordinance is found in the record.
    3. Disorderly conduct, § 1*—when evidence sufficient to sustain conviction. The evidence held sufficient to sustain the findings and judgment of conviction, on a prosecution under section 2012 of the Municipal Code of Chicago, relating to disorderly conduct.
    Mullen & L’Amoreaux, for plaintiff in error.
    Harry B. Miller, for defendant in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Dever

delivered the opinion of the court.