Case Name: City of Chicago, Defendant in Error, v. Mamie Smith, Plaintiff in Error
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1910-12-02
Citations: 159 Ill. App. 73
Docket Number: Gen. No. 14,812
Parties: City of Chicago, Defendant in Error, v. Mamie Smith, Plaintiff in Error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 159
Pages: 73–74

Head Matter:
City of Chicago, Defendant in Error, v. Mamie Smith, Plaintiff in Error.
Gen. No. 14,812.
Jurisdiction—what matters do not affect conviction for violation of ordinance. If the court rendering a judgment of conviction had jurisdiction of the subject-matter and of the parties, it is immaterial (1) that the arrest was without warrant, (2) that the complaint was filed subsequent to the arrest, (3) that the jury waiver was irregularly signed, and (4) that the judgment order in referring to the defendant was irregular in the use of pronouns.
Action in debt. Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Frederick L. Fake, Jr., Judge, presiding.
Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1909.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed December 2, 1910.
J. Gray Lucas, for plaintiff in error.
George H. White, for defendant in error; Henry M. Seligman, of counsel.

Opinion:
Mr. Presiding Justice Mack
delivered the of the court.
Judgment in debt for $100= was rendered in favor of the city against plaintiff in error for the violation of a city ordinance.
As the Municipal Court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter and the parties, it is immaterial in this proceeding that she was arrested without warrant, that the complaint was subsequently filed, that she spelled her name Mammie instead of Mamie and so signed it to the waiver of jury trial, that the judgment recites that defendant came in Ms own proper person and that in the judgment order the Superintendent of the House of Correction is directed to confine "him her."
None of these matters in any way affect the jurisdiction of the court and we cannot, on this record which contains no part of the evidence, review the case on its merits.
Affirmed.