#### City of Chicago, Defendant in Error, v. F. S. Richardson, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 21,756.

(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 October term, 1915.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed January 31, 1916.

Statement of the Case.

Prosecution by the City of Chicago against F. S. Bichareis on, defendant, in the Municipal Court of Chicago, charging defendant with a violation of section 2019 of the Chicago Code. The case was tried by the court without a jury. To reverse a judgment of conviction with a fine of two hundred dollars, defendant prosecutes this writ of error.

Benjamin E. Cohen, for plaintiff in error.

Samuel A. Ettelson and Harry B. Miller, for defendant in error; Daniel Webster, of counsel.

*595Abstract of the Decision.

1. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 39 * —when ordinance must Toe incorporated in stenographic report for purpose of review. A defendant in a prosecution charging him with violating an ordinance of the City of Chicago, who desires to preserve for review the question whether a judgment of conviction is supported by the evidence, must cause-the ordinance to be incorporated in the stenographic report.

2. Disorderly house, § 2 * —when evidence sufficient to sustain finding as to keeping of disorderly house. In a prosecution charging defendant with keeping a disorderly house in violation of a city ordinance, evidence held to justify a finding that defendant’s place was a disorderly house as charged in the complaint.

3. Disorderly house, § 2 * —when evidence sufficient to sustain finding that defendant knew character of place. In a prosecution charging defendant with keeping a disorderly house in violation of a city ordinance, the probative force of evidence as to the character of defendant’s place will also justify the conclusion that defendant knew its character.

4. Disorderly house, § 2 * —when evidence sufficient to identify premises named in complaint. In a prosecution charging defendant with keeping a disorderly house in violation of a city ordinance, evidence held sufficient to identify defendant’s premises with the premises named in the complaint.

*

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

Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.