{
  "id": 2755002,
  "name": "City of Chicago, Defendant in Error, v. Blanche Hohman, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "City of Chicago v. Hohman",
  "decision_date": "1912-12-11",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 16,800",
  "first_page": "509",
  "last_page": "510",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "175 Ill. App. 509"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "186 Ill. 336",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3227076
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/186/0336-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "120 Ill. 21",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5385881
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/120/0021-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 157,
    "char_count": 2228,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.533,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08408405277682213
    },
    "sha256": "e29f1e6d056d5964cfb84bb4a5af5158de152a00f45088bde97251dac75ed687",
    "simhash": "1:47571cbce88a88ed",
    "word_count": 379
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:46:29.550855+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "City of Chicago, Defendant in Error, v. Blanche Hohman, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Baume\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe complaint in this case charges that plaintiff in error \u201con the 31st of May, 1910, at the City of Chicago, not having a license to keep a hotel, did keep, conduct and maintain a hotel at 659 N. Clark street, Chicago, Illinois, wherein spirituous, malt, vinous and intoxicating liquor is sold in quantities less than, one. gallon, without having a license for same, in violation of \u201cSection 1348 of the Revised Municipal Code of Chicago.\u201d Upon this complaint a trial by jury in the Municipal Court resulted in a verdict against plaintiff in error, wherein the damages were assessed at $100, and judgment upon such verdict. There is no appearance by defendant in error in this court.\nThere is proof that plaintiff in error on the day and at the place named in the complaint sold to one John C. Caldwell four bottles of beer to be drunk and which was drunk upon the premises, hut there is not a scintilla of evidence that such beer was \u201clager beer,\u201d or malt liquor, or intoxicating, or that the drinking of it produced intoxication in any degree.\nUnder the rule announced and adhered to in-this state the evidence was insufficient to warrant a verdict and judgment against plaintiff in error. Hansberg v. People, 120 Ill. 21; Hewitt v. People, 186 Ill. 336.\nThe judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Baume"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Stedman & Soelke, for plaintiff in error.",
      "No appearance for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "City of Chicago, Defendant in Error, v. Blanche Hohman, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 16,800.\nDramshops\u2014sales without license. A finding against one charged with keeping a hotel without a license wherein intoxicating liquor was sold in quantities less than one gallon without a license in violation of the Revised Municipal Code of Chicago, \u00a7 1348, cannot he sustained in the absence of evidence that four bottles of beer sold on the premises and to be drunk there was \u201clager heer,\u201d malt liquor, or intoxicating, or that it produced intoxication in any degree.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Judson F. Going, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1910.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed December 11, 1912.\nStedman & Soelke, for plaintiff in error.\nNo appearance for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0509-01",
  "first_page_order": 527,
  "last_page_order": 528
}