delivered the opinion of the court.
City of Chicago v. Giersch, 189 Ill. App. 632 (1914)
Nov. 30, 1914
·
Illinois Appellate Court
·
Gen. No. 20,079; Gen. No. 20,080; Gen. No. 20,081; Gen. No. 20,082
189 Ill. App. 632
City of Chicago, Defendant in Error, v. Paul J. Giersch, Plaintiff in Error. Same v. Joseph F. Sass, Plaintiff in Error. Same v. Joseph Blacek, Plaintiff in Error. Same v. William Bykowski, Plaintiff in Error.
Gen. No. 20,079.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Gen. No. 20,080.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Gen. No. 20,081.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Gen. No. 20,082.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Frederick L. Fake, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1914.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed November 30, 1914.
Statement of the Case.
Actions in the Municipal Court of Chicago by the City of Chicago against Paul J. Giersch, Joseph F. Sass, Joseph Blacek and William Bykowski for violation of section 2012 of the Municipal Code of Chicago. The defendants were together acting in concert when the alleged violation of the ordinance occurred. A verdict of guilty was returned and a fine of one dollar was assessed against each defendant. To reverse the judgments entered on the verdicts, the defendants severally appealed and by agreement the causes were submitted in the Appellate Court on the record, abstract and briefs filed in the case against defendant Giersch.
Noble street runs into Milwaukee avenue from the north. Defendants were passengers on a southbound Noble street car and were given transfers. They took a car going northwest on Milwaukee avenue and asked for one transfer to Ashland avenue, which runs north and south. The conductor refused to give such trans*633fer and told the defendants that none of them could ride farther than Division street and Ashland avenue. There was a car line on Division, an east and west street, to which defendants might have transferred if they had taken a northbound car on Noble street. When the Milwaukee avenue car reached Division street the conductor insisted that the defendants leave the car or pay another fare, but they refused to do either.
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Breach of peace, § 1 * —what constitutes violation of city ordinance. Conduct of passengers on a street car in refusing to leave the car or pay another fare, held to warrant the jury in finding them guilty of a violation of a city ordinance prohibiting the making, etc., of “an improper noise, disturbance, breach of the peace or diversion tending to a breach of the peace.”
2. Carriers, § 262 * —duty of passenger to pay fare. Though a passenger has the right to remain on a street car he should submit, for the time being, to an order of the conductor to pay another fare and seek redress by a civil action.
3. Trial, § 261 * —when court may direct jury to correct verdict. In suits against several defendants for violation of a city ordinance, where the cases were given to the jury with leave to seal and separate, and each verdict as announced the next morning found a defendant guilty but did not fix the amount of his fine, held that the court did not err in directing the jury to retire and correct their verdict.
William D. Munhall, for plaintiffs in error.
William H. Sexton and James S. McInerney, for defendant in error; Albert J. W. Appell, of counsel.