{
  "id": 2890828,
  "name": "City of Chicago, Defendant in Error, v. Albert Steady, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "City of Chicago v. Steady",
  "decision_date": "1915-05-11",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,587",
  "first_page": "514",
  "last_page": "516",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "192 Ill. App. 514"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 275,
    "char_count": 4344,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.541,
    "sha256": "34b1ec6ce13ae4488910c3cbfc004c178c11dae289f758b9b1e55ac27b3213b9",
    "simhash": "1:2f11909cb2892a1b",
    "word_count": 768
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:32:59.384140+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "City of Chicago, Defendant in Error, v. Albert Steady, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Vagrancy, \u00a7 1 \u2014when evidence insufficient to support complaint. Where a complaint charges that defendant was known to be a pickpocket, was lounging in a street car and was unable to give a reasonable excuse for being there, evidence of the officer who arrested him that he saw defendant getting on the car, that he knew defendant to be a pickpocket and arrested him in the car on suspicion that he was trying to pick pockets, but that he did not see defendant doing anything at the time of the arrest, is insufficient to support the complaint, though defendant testified that he had not been working for a couple of months.\n2. Municipal Court of Chicago, \u00a7 13*\u2014when stenographic report sufficient. Where defendant has been allowed by order of court to file either a statement of facts or a stenographic report, a document certified to as containing all of the evidence submitted and heard is equivalent to a stenographic report and sufficient to bring the evidence up for review, even though it is not, as it is certified to be, a statement of facts.\n3. Municipal Court of Chicago, \u00a7 13*\u2014when stenographic report may he certified hy another judge. Where the placita shows that the trial of an action in the Municipal Court of Chicago was had before a judge of the City Court of Chicago Heights, holding a branch of the Municipal Court at the request of the judges of the latter court, a certificate to the stenographic report of the evidence signed by a judge of the latter court to which is appended the words \u201cin the absence of\u201d the Chicago Heights Judge \u201cwho is not acting as judge of this court at this time\u201d is sufficient in the absence of a showing or objection in the record that the judge so certifying did not act upon competent proof of the disability of the trial judge.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William Slack, for plaintiff in error.",
      "John W. Beckwith and Albert J. W. Appell, for defendant in error; John F. Power, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "City of Chicago, Defendant in Error, v. Albert Steady, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 20,587.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Charles H. Bowles, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.\nReversed with finding of fact.\nOpinion filed May 11, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\n\u2022 Complaint by the City of Chicago against Albert Steady, defendant, charging him with a violation of section 2012 of the Chicago Code of 1911.\nThe only offense charged in the complaint which there was any attempt to prove was that defendant was \u201cknown to be a pickpocket and was found lounging in and prowling and loitering about a * * * car * * * public conveyance * * * and was unable to give reasonable excuse for being so found in violation of Section 2012 of the Chicago Code of 1911. \u2019 \u2019 The only testimony in support-of said complaint was by the police officer who made the arrest, his testimony, on direct examination, being as follows: \u201cOn the 17th day of April, A. D. 1914, at six o\u2019clock a. m., I saw the defendant, Albert Steady, at the corner of 12th and Halsted streets, getting on a street car going west on 12th street. I know him as a pickpocket and that he was associating with pickpockets, and I got into the street car and placed him under arrest. I arrested him on suspicion that he was trying to pick someone\u2019s pocket in the street car.\u201d\nOn cross-examination he testified that he did not see defendant doing anything in the car or at the time he made the arrest. With this testimony the City rested. Defendant testifying, admitted that he was in the car in question, and testified that he was going home; that he was a salesman.\nIn answer to the question put by his counsel, \u201cAre you a pickpocket?\u201d he said, \u201cNo, sir, I am working.\u201d Defendant then rested and the City\u2019s counsel asked, \u201cAre you working now?\u201d and he answered, \u201cNo, I have been out of work for a couple of months,\u201d and the City again rested.\nDefendant was found guilty and fined two hundred dollars, the order providing that on failure to pay the fine he should be imprisoned in the House of Correction not to exceed six months.\nTo reverse the judgment, defendant prosecutes this writ of error.\nWilliam Slack, for plaintiff in error.\nJohn W. Beckwith and Albert J. W. Appell, for defendant in error; John F. Power, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0514-01",
  "first_page_order": 538,
  "last_page_order": 540
}