#### City of Chicago, Defendant in Error, v. Merritt O. Hoover, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 22,130.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Municipal cobpobations, § 864 * — what proof required to sustain conviction for violation of ordinance. Where an ordinance provides for a fine or imprisonment, a conviction ’cannot be sustained unless supported by a clear preponderance of the evidence.

2. Municipal cobpobations, § 864* — when evidence sufficient to sustain conviction for driving automobile while intoxicated. On a prosecution for the violation of section 2013 of the Revised Municipal Code of Chicago, prohibiting any intoxicated person from driving an automobile, evidence held sufficient to sustain the conviction of defendant.

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Edmund K. Jabecki, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1916.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed July 11, 1917.

Statement of the Case.

Prosecution by the City of Chicago, plaintiff, against Merritt 0. Hoover, defendant, for driving an automobile while intoxicated in violation of section 2013 of the Revised Municipal Code of Chicago. From a judgment of conviction, defendant brings error.

Earl J. Walker, for plaintiff in error.

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

*

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Goodwin

delivered the opinion of the court.