delivered the opinion of the court.
City of Chicago v. Delich, 193 Ill. App. 72 (1915)
June 10, 1915
·
Illinois Appellate Court
·
Gen. No. 20,686
193 Ill. App. 72
City of Chicago, Defendant in Error, v. Peter Delich, Plaintiff in Error.
Gen. No. 20,686.
(Not to he reported in full.)
Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph E. Ryan, Judge, presiding.
Heard in this court at the October term, 1914.
Reversed.
Opinion filed June 10, 1915.
Statement of the Case.
Action by City of Chicago, plaintiff, against Peter Delich, defendant, charging defendant with “resisting an officer” and “disorderly conduct” in violation of ordinances in regard thereto. On trial defendant was found guilty and fined seventy-five dollars. To reverse this judgment he prosecutes this writ of error.
The facts disclose that a police officer met defendant in the rear of his premises and asked him to open two shanties located there. They were opened by defendant and examined by the officer. Shortly thereafter three officers came to defendant’s house and stated that they had heard he was killing sheep in the basement, to which defendant replied that this was not so. The officers stated that they had been sent to make an investigation. Defendant took them down into Ms base*73ment, and after inspection they informed defendant that they found no evidence of any killing of sheep or cattle. That no indications of sheep killing were seen was testified to by the officers upon the trial. After this inspection in the basement, one of the officers informed the defendant that he was under arrest and attempted to put upon his hands a wrist chain, and the other officers seized his hands so as to bind them with the wrist chain. Defendant resisted this for three or four minutes, and then submitted quietly and walked up stairs and was taken to the police station in a patrol wagon.
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Abbest, § 25 * —when arrest without warrant unauthorised. The arrest of a person, without a warrant, on the charge of killing sheep in a basement is unauthorized, there being no statute forbidding such killing.
2. Evidence, § 10*—when Appellate Court will not take judicial notice of city ordinance. The Appellate Court will not take judicial notice of city ordinances.
3. Obstbucting justice, § 1*—when evidence insufficient to support charge of resisting officer. Evidence examined and held insufficient to support charge of resisting an officer.
R. F. Kompare, for plaintiff in error.
No appearance for defendant in error.