#### City of Chicago, Defendant in Error, v. Tom Jones, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 22,533.

(Not to he reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Hugh J. Keabns, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 191.6.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed January 8, 1917.

Rehearing denied January 22, 1917.

¡Statement of the Case.

Prosecution by the City of Chicago, plaintiff, against Tom Jones, defendant, for gambling in violation of a city ordinance of Chicago. From a judgment finding him guilty, defendant brings error.

Henry M. Seligman, for plaintiff in error.

H. B. Miller, for defendant in error.

*

Se© Blinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Presiding Justice Me Surely

delivered the opinion of the court.

*204Abstract of the Decision.

1. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 29 * —what Appellate Court may not take judicial notice of. The Appellate Court cannotz take judicial notice of a city ordinance upon which a prosecution by the city is based where such ordinance is not preserved in the record.

2. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 29 * —when presumed that trial court is justified in finding defendant guilty for violation of city ordinance. Where a city ordinance upon which a prosecution for gambling is based is not preserved in the record, it must he presumed on appeal that the trial court was justified in its finding that the defendant was guilty of engaging in gambling in violation of such ordinance.