Case ID: ill-app_189/html/0386-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice McSurely", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

City of Chicago, Plaintiff in Error, v. Dave Lewinsohn, Defendant in Error.
    Gen. No. 20,138.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    Intoxicating liquors, § 105
      
      —when finding of not guilty in suit for violation of one o’clock closing ordinance contrary to evidence. In a prosecution against a saloon keeper for keeping open his saloon between the hours of one ‘o’clock a. m. and five o’clock a. m. in violation of a city ordinance, held that a finding by the trial court of not guilty was directly contrary to the conceded facts and could not be sustained, it appearing that a witness for plaintiff testified that on the morning in question .shortly after one o’clock, he saw twenty-five or thirty people drinking at the bar of defendant’s saloon, and the defendant testifying- in his own behalf admitted such to be the fact.
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Edward T. Wade, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1914.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Opinion filed November 9, 1914.
    Statement of the Case.
    Prosecution by the City of Chicago against Dave Lewinsohn for violating a city ordinance prohibiting the keeping open of a saloon between the hours of one o’clock a. m. and five o’clock a. m. The trial court found the defendant not guilty. To reverse the judgment entered on the finding, plaintiff prosecutes a writ of error.
    William H. Sexton and James S. McInerney, for plaintiff in error; Ulysses S. Schwartz, of counsel.
    No appearance for defendant in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.