Case ID: ill-app_203/html/0202-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Mo Surely", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

City of Chicago, Defendant in Error, v. Fred Smith, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 22,532.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Municipal Coubt of Chicago, § 26
      
      —how evidence in prosecution for keeping a common gaming house may de preserved. 
      Under section 23 of the Municipal Court Act (J. & A. If 3335), prescribing how evidence in cases of the fifth class may be preserved, the evidence in a prosecution for keeping a common gaming house may be preserved by a correct statement of the facts.
    
      Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Hugh J. Kearns, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed January 8, 1917.
    Rehearing denied January 22, 1917.
    Statement of the Case.
    Prosecution by the City of Chicago, plaintiff, against Fred Smith, defendant, for keeping a common gaming house in the City of Chicago. From a judgment of guilty and assessing a fine of fifty dollars, the defendant brings error.
    Henry M. Seligman, for plaintiff in error.
    Samuel A. Ettelson and Harry B. Miller, for defendant in error; Daniel Webster, of counsel.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number. '
    
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice Mo Surely

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 29 —when presumed that evidence was sufficient to justify finding of court as to keeping of common gaming house. Where an ordinance upon which a prosecution for keeping a common gaming house was not preserved in the record, it must be presumed on appeal that the evidence was sufficient to justify a finding of the trial court that defendant was guilty of keeping a common gaming house.