{
  "id": 5410419,
  "name": "City of Chicago, Defendant in Error, v. Gussie Boller, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "City of Chicago v. Boller",
  "decision_date": "1917-01-22",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,602",
  "first_page": "282",
  "last_page": "283",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "203 Ill. App. 282"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 156,
    "char_count": 1986,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.525,
    "sha256": "2e8f1f6872ab669aefb6ff71ba304e1c2e9f9cadd29a55560f26033f0cc6a969",
    "simhash": "1:875a40fb4089e6f8",
    "word_count": 331
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:03:43.745976+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "City of Chicago, Defendant in Error, v. Gussie Boller, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William L. Martin, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Samuel A. Ettelson and Harry B. Miller, for defendant in error; Daniel Webster, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "City of Chicago, Defendant in Error, v. Gussie Boller, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 22,602.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Hugh J. Kearns, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed January 22, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nProsecution by the City of .Chicago, plaintiff, against Gussie Boiler, defendant, for keeping and maintaining a house of ill fame for the practice of prostitution in violation of a city ordinance. From a judgment upon a verdict of guilty and fine of seventy-five dollars, defendant brings error.\nWilliam L. Martin, for plaintiff in error.\nSamuel A. Ettelson and Harry B. Miller, for defendant in error; Daniel Webster, of counsel.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Municipal Court of Chicago, \u00a7 25 \u2014when application for extension of time for filing correct stenographic report is too late. An application for an extension of time for filing a \u201ccorrect stenographic report\u201d under section 23 of the Municipal Court Act (J. & A. If 3335) made more than thirty, days after rendition of the judgment is too late, and the court had no jurisdiction after said thirty days to allow further time for filing such report.\n2. Municipal Court of Chicago, \u00a7 26 \u2014when question of sufficiency of evidence will not he considered. Where a stenographic report on writ of error in the Appellate Court under section 23 of the Municipal Court Act (J. & A. If 3335), is stricken from the record because not filed in time, no assignment of error based on the sufficiency of the evidence will be considered.\n3. Municipal Court of Chicago, \u00a7 31 \u2014when judgment will he affirmed. Where a stenographic report is stricken from the record and no errors arising from the statutory record are presented, the judgment should he affirmed.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and. Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section numtier."
  },
  "file_name": "0282-01",
  "first_page_order": 306,
  "last_page_order": 307
}