{
  "id": 2845934,
  "name": "The City of Chicago, Defendant in Error, v. Edith Murray, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "City of Chicago v. Murray",
  "decision_date": "1914-03-10",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 19,099",
  "first_page": "351",
  "last_page": "352",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "185 Ill. App. 351"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 131,
    "char_count": 1706,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.533,
    "sha256": "f18ecc321c7bd71d9fca4b492e201d703b8dfe60d15ef36ac591a68d667f7ca0",
    "simhash": "1:8333ccb5d1bf1dd4",
    "word_count": 285
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:43:38.716309+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The City of Chicago, Defendant in Error, v. Edith Murray, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Smith\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Smith"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "L. J. Haigler, for plaintiff in error.",
      "William H. Sexton and James S. McInerney, for defendant in error; Albert J. W. Appell, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The City of Chicago, Defendant in Error, v. Edith Murray, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 19,099.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Jacob H. Hopkins, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1913.\n-Reversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed March 10, 1914.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Municipal Court op Chicago, \u00a7 36 \u2014proof of venue of offense. The Municipal Court Act limits the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court of the City of Chicago to offenses committed within the corporate limits of the City, and the evidence must show that the offense of violating an ordinance of the City was committed within the corporate limits in order to confer jurisdiction.\n2. Disorderly house, \u00a7 2 \u2014when proof insufficient to sustain conviction for maintaining house of ill fame. On complaint in the Municipal Court charging the defendant with maintaining a house of ill fame in violation of an ordinance, held, that a judgment finding defendant guilty could not he sustained, where there was no proof that the offense was committed within the corporate limits of the City.\nStatement of the Case.\nComplaint by the City of Chicago against Edith Murray, charging the defendant with keeping a house of ill fame or assignation in violation of section 2014, of the Municipal Code of Chicago. To reverse a judgment finding defendant guilty, defendant prosecutes a writ of error.\nL. J. Haigler, for plaintiff in error.\nWilliam H. Sexton and James S. McInerney, for defendant in error; Albert J. W. Appell, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0351-01",
  "first_page_order": 377,
  "last_page_order": 378
}