Case ID: ill-app_207/html/0050-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Goodwin", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

City of Chicago, Defendant in Error, v. Edward Walsh, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 22,146.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Evidence — what judicially noticed. The court will take judicial notice, as a fact of common knowledge, that the automatic' telephone is one conducted without the assistance of an operator, and that conversation over such a line cannot, by accident or otherwise, be heard over any other line in the system.
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Sheridan E. Ebt, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at,
    the March term, 1916.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed June 27, 1917.
    Rehearing denied July 13, 1917.
    Statement of the Case.
    Prosecution by the City of Chicago, plaintiff, against Edward Walsh, defendant, for violation of Chicago Code of 1911, sec. 982. To reverse a judgment against him for a penalty, defendant 'prosecutes this writ of error.
    Henry M. Seligman, 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. Presiding Justice Goodwin

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Municipal corporations, § 864 — when evidence sufficient to sustain conviction for violation of gambling ordinance. On a prosecution for violation of the Chicago Code of 1911, sec. 982, in reference to gambling, evidence held to support a judgment against defendant.

3. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 14* — what judicially noticed by. The Municipal Court of Chicago takes judicial notice of the ordinances of the City of Chicago.

4. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 28* — when ordinance must be certified. The trial judge, in an action in the Municipal Court of Chicago, is required, upon the request of the party appealing, to certify the ordinance or ordinances material to the issues.

5. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 29* — when presumed that complaint donformed to ordinance. On an appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Municipal Court of Chicago, where the ordinance material to the issue is not certified by the trial court, every presumption that the complaint thereunder conformed to the ordinance will be indulged in favor of the judgment.