{ "id": 2484219, "name": "Henry Janssen et al. v. The People of the State of Illinois", "name_abbreviation": "Janssen v. People", "decision_date": "1907-01-07", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 12,897", "first_page": "73", "last_page": "76", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "131 Ill. App. 73" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "58 Ill. 59", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5235240 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/58/0059-01" ] }, { "cite": "100 Ga. 360", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ga.", "case_ids": [ 584822 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ga/100/0360-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 321, "char_count": 5944, "ocr_confidence": 0.494, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.08130010668575659 }, "sha256": "d1ac796c4b2bb73f469fa862aa404d85835cc43bb70bbbc4805a4be763e8217e", "simhash": "1:a532f6f4c2c116f3", "word_count": 1009 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:03:26.003810+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Henry Janssen et al. v. The People of the State of Illinois." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Adams\ndelivered the opinion of the eonrt.\nHenry Janssen and Carrie P. Coffman were -indicted for living together \u201cin an open state of adultery and fornication.\u201d The indictment consisted of eight counts. A nolle prosequi was entered as to the first four counts, and the cause was tried on the remaining counts. It is charged in the fifth count \u201cthat Henry Janssen and Carrie P. Coffman, late of the county of Cook, on the 21st day of August, in the year of our Lord 1904, in said county of Cook, in the state of Illinois, aforesaid, unlawfully did live together in an open state of adultery and fornication, he, the aforesaid Henry Janssen, then being a single man, and she, the said Carrie F. Coffman,\" then being a married woman, contrary to the statute,\u201d etc.\nIn each of the succeeding counts the offense charged against plaintiffs in error is the having unlawfully lived together in an open state of adultery and fornication. The jury returned a verdict as follows: \u201cWe, the jury, find the defendant, Henry Janssen, guilty of fornication in manner and form as charged in the indictment; and we, the jury, find the defendant, Carrie Coffman, guilty of adultery as charged in the indictment.\u201d\nThe statute on this subject is: \u201cIf any man and woman shall \u2018live together in an open state of adultery, or fornication, or adultery and fornication, every such person shall be fined,\u201d etc.\nHere three distinct offenses are mentioned: (1) The living together in an open state of adultery. (2) The living together in an open state of fornication. (3) The living together in an open state of adultery and fornication.\nIn Kendrick v. The State, 100 Ga. 360, the court so construed a statute of the state of Georgia in the exact language of our statute, except as to the punishment. It is not the commission of adultery merely, or of fornication merely\u2014which constitutes the offense charged in the indictment, but the living together in an open state of adultery and fornication. In Searls v. The People, 58 Ill. 59, the court say: \u201cIn order to constitute this crime, the parties must dwell together openly and notoriously, upon terms as if the conjugal relation existed between them. There must be an habitual illicit intercourse between them. The object of the statute was to prohibit the public scandal and disgrace of the living together of persons of opposite sexes, notoriously in illicit intimacy, which outrages public decency, having a demoralizing and debasing influence upon society.\u201d Neither adultery nor fornication is charged in the indictment as a substantive offense; neither, considered alone, is a statutory crime in this state, and neither is indictable at common law. 2 Wharton\u2019s Crim. Law, 9th Fed. Sec. 1717; 1 Bishop\u2019s New Crim. Law, Sec. 38.\nThe jury found \u201cHenry Janssen guilty of fornication in manner and form as charged in the indictment,\u201d and \u201cCarrie P. Coffman guilty of adultery in manner and form as charged in the indictment.\u201d Neither fornication nor adultery, considered alone, being a crime, or charged as such in the' indictment, the verdict is not responsive to the indictment, which charges the offense of unlawfully living together in an open state of adultery and fornication. We think it too plain to require argument that the verdict does not find that plaintiffs in error were living together in an open state of adultery and fornication. The verdict, therefore, is not sufficient on which to base a judgment.\n\u201cIn criminal cases the only verdict which a jury can render, under the law, is a general one, a verdict of guilty or not guilty, which is a decision both on the law and the facts.\u201d 29 Am. & Eng. Cyclop\u00e6dia, 2 ed.\nAlthough the clerk has certified the transcript \u201cto be a true, perfect and complete copy of the record,\u201d no judgment is contained in the record proper, which is an inexcusable omission, on the hypothesis that there was a formal judgment of record when the transcript was prepared. However, it is recited in the bill of exceptions, that the court sentenced each of the defendants, on the verdict of the jury, fixing the punishment of the defendant, Henry Janssen, at imprisonment in the house of correction for two months, and the defendant, Carrie F. Coffman, to imprisonment in the county jail for two months.\nWhat has been said is sufficient to dispose of the appeal, and we will only say, in respect to the evidence, which we have 'carefully read and considered, that we do not think it proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that plaintiffs in error lived together in an open and notorious state of adultery and fornication. Inasmuch as the case may be retried, we do not think it expedient to comment, at greater length, on the evidence.\nThe judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.\nReversed and remanded.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Adams" } ], "attorneys": [ "Charles Hughes and F. H. Novak, for plaintiffs in error.", "John J. Healy, State\u2019s Attorney, and John R. Newcomer, for defendant in error; Douglas Pattison and F. L. Barnett, of connsel." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Henry Janssen et al. v. The People of the State of Illinois.\nGen. No. 12,897.\n1. Adultery\u2014statute making living together in open state of, construed. The statute mentions three distinct offenses: first, the living together in an open state of adultery; second, the living together in an open state of fornication; and third, the living together in an open state of adultery and fornication.\n2. Verdict\u2014when not responsive. A verdict in a criminal prosecution where the indictment charges \u201cliving together in an open state of adultery and fornication\u201d is not responsive where it finds one of the defendants \u201cguilty of fornication in manner and form as charged in the indictment\u201d and the other defendant \u201cguilty of adultery in manner and form as charged in the indictment.\u201d\nCriminal prosecution. Error to the Criminal Court of Cook county; the Hon. Ben M. Smith, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1906.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed January 7, 1907.\nCharles Hughes and F. H. Novak, for plaintiffs in error.\nJohn J. Healy, State\u2019s Attorney, and John R. Newcomer, for defendant in error; Douglas Pattison and F. L. Barnett, of connsel." }, "file_name": "0073-01", "first_page_order": 89, "last_page_order": 92 }