#### City of Chicago, Plaintiff in Error, v. W. W. Quinn, Defendant in Error.

Gen. No. 20,134.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Intoxicating liquors, § 162 * —when judgment for defendant sustained. Where the trial court might reasonably infer from the evidence in an action by the City against one for the violation of an ordinance against keeping saloons open after a certain hour, that the ordinance has not been violated, the Appellate Court will affirm the judgment of the trial court in favor of the defendant.

2. Appeal and error, § 1034*—when ordinance not judicially noticed. Where a city ordinance has not been preserved for the consideration of the Appellate Court it will not take judicial notice of the existence of such ordinance.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Edward T. Wade, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1914.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 26, 1915.

Statement of the Case.

Action by the City of Chicago against W. W. Quinn in the Municipal Court charging the defendant with keeping his saloon open after one o’clock a. m. in violation of the city ordinance. The trial court found for the defendant and the plaintiff brings error.

William H. Sexton and James S. McInerney, for plaintiff in error; Ulysses S. Schwartz, of counsel.

No appearance for defendant in error.

*

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

Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.