City of Chicago v. Murnell

Appellate Court of Illinois

City of Chicago v. Murnell

159 Ill. App. 415, 1911 Ill. App. LEXIS 980

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedJanuary 6, 1911

DocketGen. No. 15,284

StatusPublished

This text of 159 Ill. App. 415 (City of Chicago v. Murnell) 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. Murnell, 159 Ill. App. 415, 1911 Ill. App. LEXIS 980 (Ill. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Smith

delivered the opinion of the court.

James Murnell, plaintiff in error, was arrested on November 25,1908, charged with violating section 1454 of the Revised Municipal Code of Chicago of 1905; and on December 3,1908, was fined $100 and costs. On December 30, 1908, this writ of error was sued out to reverse the judgment.

Upon a careful consideration of the evidence we are of the opinion that it is insufficient to make out a case against plaintiff in error, even if we are to take judicial notice of the ordinance of the city of Chicago set out in defendant in error’s brief under the provisions of the Municipal Court Act, which we do not find it necessary to decide in view of our conclusion on the evidence. The evidence fails to show a violation of the ordinance. The judgment has no support in the evidence other than suspicion, and must be reversed.

Reversed and remanded.

Mr. Justice Baldwin took no part in the decision of this case.

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

Mr. Justice Smith

delivered the opinion of the court.

James Murnell, plaintiff in error, was arrested on November 25,1908, charged with violating section 1454 of the Revised Municipal Code of Chicago of 1905; and on December 3,1908, was fined $100 and costs. On December 30, 1908, this writ of error was sued out to reverse the judgment.

Upon a careful consideration of the evidence we are of the opinion that it is insufficient to make out a case against plaintiff in error, even if we are to take judicial notice of the ordinance of the city of Chicago set out in defendant in error’s brief under the provisions of the Municipal Court Act, which we do not find it necessary to decide in view of our conclusion on the evidence. The evidence fails to show a violation of the ordinance. The judgment has no support in the evidence other than suspicion, and must be reversed.

Reversed and remanded.

Mr. Justice Baldwin took no part in the decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 Ill. App. 415, 1911 Ill. App. LEXIS 980, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-chicago-v-murnell-illappct-1911.