Naegle v. City of Centralia
Appellate Court of Illinois
Prosecution for Violating an Ordinance.—Trial in the Circuit Court of Marion County; the Hon. Truman E. Ames, Judge, presiding. Finding and judgment for plaintiff; error by defendant.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Worthington
Plaintiff in error urges error in the admission of Sec. 2 and Sec. 3 of Chap. 21 of the ordinances of Centralia, upon the ground that no proof was made of the passage of the ordinance. The objection to its introduction was general, stating no reasons whatever. It is too late now to raise a specific objection, that might have been removed if made at the trial.
As both cases were consolidated and but one judgment rendered, if plaintiff in error was rightfully convicted of violating either Sec. 2 or Sec. 3 of Chap. 21, the judgment must be affirmed.
If not rightfully convicted of violating one or…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Tugman v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court · 1875
- City of Carrollton v. BazzetteIllinois Supreme Court · 1896
- Darling v. City of St. PaulSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1872
- City of Kinmundy v. MahanIllinois Supreme Court · 1874
- City of Chicago v. HardyAppellate Court of Illinois · 1896
3Cited by2 opinions
- Williams v. City of DadevilleAlabama Court of Appeals · 1950
- Endelman v. City of BloomingtonAppellate Court of Illinois · 1907