
    City of Chicago, Defendant in Error, v. Victor Bisso, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 22,064.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William N. Gemmill, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1916.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed February 19, 1917.
    Statement of the Case.
    Complaint by the City of Chicago, plaintiff, against Victor Bisso, defendant, charging him with keeping a disorderly house in violation of section 2019 of the Municipal Code of Chicago. From a judgment of conviction and fine of one hundred dollars, defendant brings error.
    William L. Martin, for plaintiff in error.
    Harry B. Miller, for defendant in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 26 —when denial of motion for change of venue is not correctly preserved for review. Denial of a motion for a change of venue, in a case under the Municipal Court Act, held not properly preserved for review under section 23 of that Act (J. & A. If 3335), by a purported bill of exceptions in the absence of a correct statement as required by such section.

2. Attorney and client, § 11*—when affidavit may not be sworn to before attorney. An affidavit in support of a motion for a change of venue cannot be sworn to before the party’s attorney in the case.

3. Municipal corporations, § 867*—when presumed that verdict for violation of ordinance is correct. Judicial notice will not be taken in the Appellate Court of a municipal ordinance not before it, and the correctness of a verdict for a violation of such ordinance will be presumed.

4. Disorderly house, § 2*—when evidence is sufficient to sustain conviction for keeping. The evidence held to sustain the charge, in a prosecution for keeping a disorderly house in violation of a municipal ordinance.

5. Appeal and error, § 1514*—when curtailing of time for argument of motion is harmless error. It is not reversible error for a court to curtail time for argument of a motion for a new trial in a case.  