#### City of Chicago, Defendant in Error, v. Otto Gross, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 20,197.

Abstract of the Decision.

Disorderly house, § 2 * —when evidence insufficient to sustain conviction. Where on a prosecution for violating an ordinance against the keeping of a house for the “encouragement of idleness, gaming, drinking, fornication or other misbehaviors,” the evidence showed that defendant was merely in charge of a saloon temporarily during the illness of the proprietor and was arrested on the day following that on which he took charge, and the evidence fails to show that the house was kept for prohibited purposes while defendant was in charge, a judgment of conviction will be reversed.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Rufus F. Robinson, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1914.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed April 26, 1915.

Statement of the Case.

Prosecution by the City of Chicago against Otto Gross for the violation of a city ordinance directed against “every common, ill-governed or disorderly house, room or other premises, kept for the encouragement of idleness, gaming, drinking, fornication or other misbehaviors * * The proprietor of a saloon secured the services of the defendant' to operate his place of business during his illness. To reverse a judgment of conviction, plaintiff brings error.

D. B. Brillow and George J. Reece, 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. Justice Baker

delivered the. opinion of the court.