City of Chicago v. Lesser

Appellate Court of Illinois

City of Chicago v. Lesser

196 Ill. App. 37

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedDecember 21, 1915

DocketGen. No. 20,211

StatusPublished

This text of 196 Ill. App. 37 (City of Chicago v. Lesser) 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. Lesser, 196 Ill. App. 37 (Ill. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice McGoorty

delivered the opinion of the court.

4. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 13*—when motion for rule requiring filing more specific statement necessary in action for penalty. In an action to recover a penalty for violation of a city ordinance relative to gaming, where the complaint is objected to as being indefinite, defendant’s remedy is to move for a rule to require plaintiff to file a more specific statement as in other cases of the fourth and fifth classes under the Municipal Court Act, as such an action is a civil action and the complaint therein stands as a statement of plaintiff’s claim. 5. Gaming, § 43*—when evidence sufficient to sustain judgment. In an action to recover a penalty for violation of an ordinance of the City of Chicago, relative to gaming, a judgment for plaintiff, held not manifestly against the weight of the evidence.

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

Mr. Justice McGoorty

delivered the opinion of the court.

4. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 13*—when motion for rule requiring filing more specific statement necessary in action for penalty. In an action to recover a penalty for violation of a city ordinance relative to gaming, where the complaint is objected to as being indefinite, defendant’s remedy is to move for a rule to require plaintiff to file a more specific statement as in other cases of the fourth and fifth classes under the Municipal Court Act, as such an action is a civil action and the complaint therein stands as a statement of plaintiff’s claim. 5. Gaming, § 43*—when evidence sufficient to sustain judgment. In an action to recover a penalty for violation of an ordinance of the City of Chicago, relative to gaming, a judgment for plaintiff, held not manifestly against the weight of the evidence.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 Ill. App. 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-chicago-v-lesser-illappct-1915.