{
  "id": 2854437,
  "name": "City of Chicago, Defendant in Error, v. John D. Rowe, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "City of Chicago v. Rowe",
  "decision_date": "1914-05-25",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 19,472",
  "first_page": "175",
  "last_page": "175",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "187 Ill. App. 175"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 147,
    "char_count": 1693,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.533,
    "sha256": "9c909cc676b2028d9da462afdccc662057a806a2745f0ff136767b36dbfb804d",
    "simhash": "1:a547832bd319a47c",
    "word_count": 294
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:57:10.884591+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "City of Chicago, Defendant in Error, v. John D. Rowe, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Baker\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Baker"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. S. McClure, for plaintiff in error.",
      "William H. Sexton and James S. McInerney, for defendant in error; Albert J. W. Appell, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "City of Chicago, Defendant in Error, v. John D. Rowe, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 19,472.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Beclsion.\n1. Municipal cobpobations, \u00a7 865 \u2014when 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.\n2. Penalties, \u00a7 14*\u2014degree 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.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Hugh R. Stewart, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1913.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed May 25, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction 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.\nJ. S. McClure, 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, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0175-01",
  "first_page_order": 201,
  "last_page_order": 201
}