Case ID: ill-app_192/html/0472-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Baume", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

City of Chicago, Plaintiff in Error, v. Clarence E. Green, Defendant in Error.
    Gen. No. 20,135.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Edwabd T. Wade, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1914.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed April 28, 1915.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    1. ' Municipal corporations, § 864
      
      —when evidence insufficient to show ownership in action for penalty. In an action for a penalty based on the violation of a city ordinance, requiring saloons to remain closed during certain hours, evidence held insufficient to show ownership of the saloon by defendant.
    2. Municipal corporations, § 864*—when ownership must he shown in action for penalty. Under a complaint charging that defendant kept open a saloon between one and five o’clock a. m. and sold intoxicants during that period in violation of an ordinance, ownership by the defendant of the offending saloon must be shown, since the gist of the offense charged was the unlawful use and occupation of property by the defendant.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by the City of Chicago against Clarence E. Creen in the Municipal Court to recover a penalty for the alleged violation by the defendant of a section of the Municipal Code, in keeping his saloon open between the hours of one and five o’clock a. m. To reverse a judgment for the defendant on a trial before the court without a jury, plaintiff brings 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. Presiding Justice Baume

delivered the opinion of the court.