#### City of Chicago, Defendant in Error, v. John D. Rowe, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 19,472.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Abstract of the Beclsion.

1. Municipal cobpobations, § 865 * —when instruction on degree of proof to establish violation of ordinance proper. In an action to recover a penalty for violation of a city ordinance, an instruction telling the jury that in arriving at their verdict before they could find the defendant guilty they must do so by a clear preponderance of the evidence, held not improper.

2. Penalties, § 14*—degree of proof in suit to recover. In actions to recover a penalty for the violation of an ordinance or statute there must he more than a mere preponderance of the evidence, hut it is not necessary that the evidence should establish the violation beyond a reasonable doubt. To warrant a verdict for the plaintiff there must be a clear preponderance of the evidence in favor of the plaintiff.

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Hugh R. Stewart, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1913.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed May 25, 1914.

Statement of the Case.

Action by the City of Chicago against John D. Bowe to recover a penalty for a violation of an ordinance of the City of Chicago in relation to disorderly conduct. To reverse a judgment in favor of the City for one dollar and costs, defendant prosecutes a writ of error.

J. S. McClure, for plaintiff in error.

William H. Sexton and James S. McInerney, for defendant in error; Albert J. W. Appell, of counsel.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Presiding Justice Baker

delivered the opinion of the court.