City of Chicago v. Hohman

Appellate Court of Illinois

City of Chicago v. Hohman

175 Ill. App. 509, 1912 Ill. App. LEXIS 188

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedDecember 11, 1912

DocketGen. No. 16,800

StatusPublished

This text of 175 Ill. App. 509 (City of Chicago v. Hohman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Chicago v. Hohman, 175 Ill. App. 509, 1912 Ill. App. LEXIS 188 (Ill. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Baume

delivered the opinion of the court.

The complaint in this case charges that plaintiff in error “on the 31st of May, 1910, at the City of Chicago, not having a license to keep a hotel, did keep, conduct and maintain a hotel at 659 N. Clark street, Chicago, Illinois, wherein spirituous, malt, vinous and intoxicating liquor is sold in quantities less than, one. gallon, without having a license for same, in violation of “Section 1348 of the Revised Municipal Code of Chicago.” Upon this complaint a trial by jury in the Municipal Court resulted in a verdict against plaintiff in error, wherein the damages were assessed at $100, and judgment upon such verdict. There is no appearance by defendant in error in this court.

There is proof that plaintiff in error on the day and at the place named in the complaint sold to one John C. Caldwell four bottles of beer to be drunk and which was drunk upon the premises, hut there is not a scintilla of evidence that such beer was “lager beer,” or malt liquor, or intoxicating, or that the drinking of it produced intoxication in any degree.

Under the rule announced and adhered to in-this state the evidence was insufficient to warrant a verdict and judgment against plaintiff in error. Hansberg v. People, 120 Ill. 21; Hewitt v. People, 186 Ill. 336.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice Baume

delivered the opinion of the court.

The complaint in this case charges that plaintiff in error “on the 31st of May, 1910, at the City of Chicago, not having a license to keep a hotel, did keep, conduct and maintain a hotel at 659 N. Clark street, Chicago, Illinois, wherein spirituous, malt, vinous and intoxicating liquor is sold in quantities less than, one. gallon, without having a license for same, in violation of “Section 1348 of the Revised Municipal Code of Chicago.” Upon this complaint a trial by jury in the Municipal Court resulted in a verdict against plaintiff in error, wherein the damages were assessed at $100, and judgment upon such verdict. There is no appearance by defendant in error in this court.

There is proof that plaintiff in error on the day and at the place named in the complaint sold to one John C. Caldwell four bottles of beer to be drunk and which was drunk upon the premises, hut there is not a scintilla of evidence that such beer was “lager beer,” or malt liquor, or intoxicating, or that the drinking of it produced intoxication in any degree.

Under the rule announced and adhered to in-this state the evidence was insufficient to warrant a verdict and judgment against plaintiff in error. Hansberg v. People, 120 Ill. 21; Hewitt v. People, 186 Ill. 336.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 Ill. App. 509, 1912 Ill. App. LEXIS 188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-chicago-v-hohman-illappct-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack