Case ID: ill-app_204/html/0164-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

City of Chicago, Defendant in Error, v. Emma Simonetti, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 22,066.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William N. Gemmill, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1916.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed February 19, 1917.
    Statement of the Case.
    Complaint by the City of Chicago, plaintiff, against Emma Simonetti, defendant, charging her with keeping a dramshop and selling liquor in less quantities than one gallon, in violation of section 1539 of the Municipal Code of Chicago. From a judgment of conviction and fine of fifty dollars, defendant brings error. See also, City of Chicago v. Simonetti, 203 111. App. 279.
    William L. Martin, for plaintiff in error.
    Harry B. Miller, for defendant in error.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 26
      
      —when denial of motion for change of venue not correctly preserved for review. Denial of a motion for a change of venue, in a case under the Municipal Court Act, held not properly preserved for review under section 23 of that Act (J. & A. ¶ 3335), by a purported bill of exceptions in the absence of a correct statement as required by such section.
    2. Attorney and client, § 11*—when affidavit may not he sworn to before notary. An affidavit in support of a motion for a change of venue cannot be sworn to before the party’s attorney in the case.
    3. Municipal corporations, § 867*—when presumed that verdict for violation of ordinance is correct. Judicial notice will not be taken by the Appellate Court of a municipal ordinance not before it, and the correctness of a verdict for a violation of such ordinance will be presumed.
    4. Intoxicating liquors, § 105*—when evidence is sufficient to sustain conviction for keeping dramshop. Evidence held to sustain the charge, in a prosecution for keeping a dramshop in violation of a municipal ordinance.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.