here. (Brown v. People, supra.) While an indictment at common law charging the larceny of money, without other words of description, would not be good, still we are of the opinion that it is within the power of the legislature to provide that it shall be sufficient, in charging an offense where the subject of the crime is money and the grade of the offense does not depend upon the amount, to simply use the word "money," without the addition of other words of particular description.

We think the indictment in this case charging that the plaintiff in error obtained money by means and by use of the confidence game sufficiently advised him of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

The judgment of the circuit court of Winnebago county is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

KATHERINE BABICZ, Defendant in Error, vs. THE RIVERVIEW SHARPSHOOTERS PARK COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error.

Opinion filed October 26, 1912-Rehearing denied Dec. 4, 1912.

I. AMUSEMENT PARKS-when a company's liability is not affected by ownership of land where accident occurs. Where an amusement park company encloses land with its own under an arrangement with the owner to pay him a certain per cent of gross receipts from concessions placed upon his land, its liability for an accident occurring on such land is the same as though it occurred on its own land, where it had the exclusive control of the land, the right to select the concessionaires, make all rules for using the premises and to terminate the concessions.

2. SAME when a company is liable for accident. An amusement park company which operates no attractions itself but merely charges a general admission to the park must nevertheless exercise ordinary care to see that the attractions conducted by its concessionaires are reasonably safe, where it receives a percentage of all admission fees collected by the concessionaires, selects the cashier or ticket seller for each concession, handles all receipts, pays itself its percentage for the use of the ground, for

tickets used, electric power supplied and the salaries of the cashiers or ticket sellers, reserves all right to supervise and control the construction of the concessions and all repairs, and the right to eject concessionaires for violation of the rules or requirements of the company.

WRIT OF ERROR to the Branch "B" Appellate Court for the First District;-heard in that court on appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. HOMER ABBOTT, Judge, presiding.

LEON S. ALSCHULER, and CHARLES W. STIEFEL, for plaintiff in error.

N. L. PIOTROWSKI, (EUGENE M. BUMPHREY, and PHILIP R. FRASER, of counsel,) for defendant in error.

Mr. JUSTICE COOKE delivered the opinion of the court:

The Appellate Court for the First District affirmed a judgment of the superior court of Cook county in favor of defendant in error for personal injuries, and the judgment of that court has been brought up for review by writ of certiorari.

Katherine Babicz, the defendant in error, was injured in the collapse of a section of seats erected and used by the concessionaires in an attraction maintained in an amusement park in the city of Chicago. The suit was brought against J. E. Miller and Arthur B. McCoid, the concessionaires, and the Riverview Sharpshooters Park Company. Upon the trial in the superior court a verdict was returned for $6000. The court required a remittitur of $2000 and judgment was entered for $4000. Upon appeal the Appellate Court required a further remittitur of $1000 and entered judgment for $3000. During the progress of the trial in the superior court the action was dismissed as to Miller and McCoid, the judgment recovered being against plaintiff in error alone. At the end of the plaintiff's case,

and again at the conclusion of all the evidence, plaintiff in error offered a peremptory instruction to find it not guilty.

Plaintiff in error contends that the facts disclosed do not establish any liability on its part for the injuries sustained, and bases this contention upon two grounds: First, that the concessionaires, Miller and McCoid, were lessees in exclusive possession of the premises upon which the accident occurred; and second, that that part of the premises upon which the accident occurred was leased by Miller and McCoid from a third party, Herman Lee. No question is raised about the manner in which the accident occurred or that the defendant in error sustained the injuries claimed.

The Riverview Sharpshooters Park Company is a corporation organized for pecuniary profit and operates an amusement park in the city of Chicago. The park, as originally constituted and operated, consisted of a tract of land 1850 feet long east and west and 600 feet wide north and south. Afterward it acquired an additional strip adjoining this tract on the south, which was 600 feet long north and south and 200 feet wide east and west. According to the testimony of its secretary, William M. Johnson, plaintiff in error never operated a concession within the park. It charged a general admission fee of ten cents for each person who entered the park, and it received in addition a percentage of the gross receipts from each of the concessions. Extending north and south through the tract last acquired by plaintiff in error was a street known as the "Bowery," which was located somewhat west of the center of the tract. The ground on each side of this street was leased to various concessionaires for the erection of such attractions as are commonly found in amusement parks. The strip was not wide enough to permit of the erection of attractions on each side of the street known as the Bowery. Herman Lee was the owner of a strip of land adjoining this tract on the west. From the testimony

of the witness Johnson it was disclosed that the plaintiff in error had an arrangement whereby, as it needed additional grounds for concessions, it should use the land of Lee adjoining the Bowery tract upon terms which had been agreed upon, and pursuant to that arrangement the whole of the Lee tract was fenced in by plaintiff in error and included within the general park enclosure. That arrangement was such, according to Johnson's testimony, that when a concessionaire desired additional land for the construction of his attraction he could have it by complying with terms agreed upon between plaintiff in error and Lee. The park company paid Lee nothing for the right to enclose his land or for the right to take any portion of it as it needed it, the only consideration being that as the land was occupied and used, Lee was to receive a certain percentage from the gross receipts of the concessions. McCoid desired to secure a concession from plaintiff in error and to install an attraction within the park to be known as the "Florida Zoo." The concession was granted to him and he afterward associated Miller with him in the enterprise. It appears from the testimony that the first contract drawn between Miller and McCoid and plaintiff in error whereby they were granted the concession was not executed, for the reason that McCoid did not desire to have his name appear as one of the concessionaires. The date this contract. was drawn and presented for execution does not appear from the abstract. On April 26, 1907, an agreement was executed between Herman Lee and the Florida Zoo Company, by Miller as manager, whereby sufficient ground of the Lee property was leased to the Florida Zoo Company in the rear of the front space allotted to it by the park company to erect its attraction, and in consideration of the lease it was provided that the concessionaires, for the season of 1907, should pay to Lee ten per cent of the daily gross receipts, and the treasurer of the park company was authorized to receive and receipt for all moneys payable

under the agreement. On the first day of May, 1907, an agreement was executed by plaintiff in error and the Florida Zoo Company, by Miller as manager, which recited the application for the concession and the fact that plaintiff in error did not have sufficient ground on which to locate the concession but that it would procure the same for the concessionaires from the adjacent owner, and granted to the concessionaires the right to install and maintain their attraction in the park, with a front on the west line of the Bowery, for the season of 1907. The ground occupied by the concessionaires under these two agreements consisted of a tract eighty feet east and west by fifty feet north and south, the east eight feet of the tract being in the park proper and the west seventy-two feet in the Lee tract. Together with other provisions, the agreement between plaintiff in error and the Florida Zoo Company provided that the concession, as against the public, was under the control of the concessionaires alone, and that in case of accident or casualty the risk and liability was that of the concessionaires, and that the concessionaires undertook and agreed to save the park company harmless from any damages from accidents which might arise out of or be occasioned by the maintenance and operation of the concession. The concessionaires also agreed to be governed by eighteen different rules and regulations of the company, which were set out in full in the contract. Among other things, these rules required that all concessions must be so installed and operated as to comply with the municipal regulations of the city of Chicago and the laws of the State of Illinois; that each concessionaire must suitably guard and protect the features of the attraction he operates, so as to insure the safety of the patrons of the park; that the company reserved the right at all times to make any other general rules which might apply to all the concessionaires, and that when such rules should be adopted and notice given, the same should be as binding and effective as if embraced within the contract.