{
  "id": 2876516,
  "name": "City of Chicago, Plaintiff in Error, v. H. W. Smith, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "City of Chicago v. Smith",
  "decision_date": "1915-06-17",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,136",
  "first_page": "305",
  "last_page": "306",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "194 Ill. App. 305"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 159,
    "char_count": 2264,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.527,
    "sha256": "6d484b60fca8ec9bee87c373f6fda39f4395d85a67cc24594f9140d695ecec46",
    "simhash": "1:aa605ca4551f21fd",
    "word_count": 392
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:49:21.752065+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "City of Chicago, Plaintiff in Error, v. H. W. Smith, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Fitch\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n3. Municipal corporations, \u00a7 864 \u2014when failure to prove ordinance justifies finding for defendant. Where an ordinance is not set out but is only referred to by section number in the plaintiff\u2019s statement of claim in the Municipal Court, in an action to recover a penalty, and the ordinance was neither offered in evidence nor considered at the trial, the only finding that the trial court could make was in favor of the defendant.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Fitch"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William H. Sexton and James S. McInerney, for plaintiff in error; Ulysses S. Schwartz, of counsel.",
      "No appearance for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "City of Chicago, Plaintiff in Error, v. H. W. Smith, Defendant in Error.\nGen. No. 20,136.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Edward T. Wade, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1914.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 17, 1915.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1265 \u2014when regularity of proceedings presumed. On an appeal or writ of error the findings and judgments of a trial court are presumed to he correct until the contrary is made to appear.\n2. Municipal corporations, \u00a7 867 \u2014when acquittal of defendant in action on ordinance not open to review. The question whether judgment was properly rendered for the defendant, in an action on an ordinance for a penalty, will not be considered on writ of error where the ordinance was not included in the statement of the facts or in the stenographic report of the evidence.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by the City of Chicago against H. W. Smith to recover a penalty for the violation of a city ordinance. Judgment was rendered for the defendant, and the city sued out a writ of error.-\nThe stenographic report of the trial did not show that any ordinance of the city was offered in evidence or considered by the court. The ordinance alleged to have been violated, was not set out in the plaintiff\u2019s statement of claim, but was merely referred to as \u201cSection 1541 of the City Code of 1911.\u201d\nWilliam H. Sexton and James S. McInerney, for plaintiff in error; Ulysses S. Schwartz, of counsel.\nNo appearance for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, ant? Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0305-01",
  "first_page_order": 327,
  "last_page_order": 328
}