{
  "id": 2834028,
  "name": "City of Chicago, Defendant in Error, v. Edward Meyers, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "City of Chicago v. Meyers",
  "decision_date": "1913-11-24",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 18,258",
  "first_page": "345",
  "last_page": "348",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "183 Ill. App. 345"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "254 Ill. 360",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        4688294
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/254/0360-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 312,
    "char_count": 5416,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.528,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08491691986675672
    },
    "sha256": "2c4ff24320ecd2bc9f69ec0e92c03aacfcef40be1826ac151af2257fd0b6d23e",
    "simhash": "1:5677c59815df6958",
    "word_count": 957
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:57:27.806602+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "City of Chicago, Defendant in Error, v. Edward Meyers, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Brown\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe record in this case shows that the plaintiff in error was arrested and brought into the Municipal Court by a police officer of the City of Chicago; that. the Municipal Court thereupon took jurisdiction of his person; that the police officer received leave to file a complaint against him and did so, under oath; that the plaintiff in error then being advised by the court as to his right to a trial by jury, elected to waive a jury and executed a waiver in writing in the cause, which was entitled \u201cCity of Chicago vs. Edward Meyers\nThe complaint stated that the officer making it was a police officer of the City of Chicago, and that he saw the plaintiff in error in the act of committing various offenses against good order (which are included in a printed blank) \u201cin violation of Section 2012 of the Chicago Code of 1911.\u201d The offenses charged are all those included in said section and called therein generally \u201cdisorderly conduct.\u201d\nThe complaint also states that so seeing him, the complaining officer took the plaintiff in error \u201cwithout delay before the Municipal Court of Chicago.\u201d\nIt does not appear that the defendant made any demand for a more specific bill of particulars. If he had done so he would have been entitled to a more specific statement of what he was accused of. City of Chicago v. Williams, 254 Ill. 360. The court found him guilty and the evidence is not preserved in the record. It must be presumed, therefore, that it showed him guilty of the matters, or some one of them, mentioned in the complaint, and declared \u201cdisorderly conduct\u201d in the section of the City Code in question. The plaintiff in error was after being thus found guilty fined by the court $200 and costs, the judgment being that \u201cthe City of Chicago have and recover from the defendant a fine in the sum of $200, etc., and that execution issue therefor, \u2019 \u2019 and also that \u2018 default having been made in the payment of said monies,\u201d etc., he be committed to the House of Correction until the fine and costs shall be worked out at the rate of fifty cents per day, etc., or until the whole of said fine and costs shall have been paid, or until said defendant shall have been discharged according to law.\nThere is nothing irregular in this procedure. Counsel for plaintiff in error says in his brief that the complaint was subscribed and sworn to \u201cafter judgment.\u201d This is not shown by the record, but the contrary appears. The complaint and judgment were the same day, but the record shows the filing of the complaint was first. The procedure of bringing the defendant into court was in accordance with clause IV of section 49 of the Municipal Court Act, said clause having been added to that act by the Amendatory Act of June 3, 1907.\nThe counsel for defendant also insists that there was no appearance by the City of Chicago to prosecute. There is nothing to show the City did not appear and prosecute. The officer who made the complaint was in a sense the agent of the City. At all events, for all that the record shows, the whole law department of the City may have been present. The proceedings in the absence of any showing to the contrary are in this particular presumed to be regular. Nor is there any merit in the contention that because an execution was ordered for the fine, the commitment to work it out under the Act approved April 12, 1879, providing for the punishment for violation of municipal ordinances was illegal or vice versa, that the order for the execution was illegal because of the commitment. When the fine is paid in any manner the imprisonment would end, and whatever is earned under the statute by labor in the House of Correction would be credited on the execution.\nThe judgment of the Municipal Court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Brown"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles E. Erbstein, for plaintiff in error.",
      "William H. Sexton and James S. McInerney, for defendant in error; Edwin J. Raber, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "City of Chicago, Defendant in Error, v. Edward Meyers, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 18,258.\n1. Municipal Court of Chicago, \u00a7 39 \u2014presumption on review when evidence not preserved in record. Where the evidence is not preserved in the record it will he presumed that it showed the defendant guilty of the matters, or some one of them mentioned in the complaint.\n2. Municipal Court of Chicago, \u00a7 39 \u2014when want of appearance by prosecution not preserved on review. Objection that there was no appearance by the City of Chicago to prosecute cannot be raised where there is nothing in the record to show that the city did not appear to prosecute, and the officer who made the complaint was in a sense the agent of the City.\n3. Criminal law, \u00a7 461 \u2014conclusiveness of record. Assignment of error that the complaint was subscribed and sworn to \u201cafter judgment\u201d cannot be considered where the contrary appears from the record.\n4. Criminal law, \u00a7 391 \u2014when order of commitment not invalidated by order for an execution. Fact\" that an execution was ordered for the fine, does not render an order of commitment to work it out in the house of correction illegal.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John R Caverly, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1912.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed November 24, 1913.\nCharles E. Erbstein, for plaintiff in error.\nWilliam H. Sexton and James S. McInerney, for defendant in error; Edwin J. Raber, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XIV, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XIV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0345-01",
  "first_page_order": 367,
  "last_page_order": 370
}