{
  "id": 2627339,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Harry Hill, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Hill",
  "decision_date": "1909-12-07",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 14,906",
  "first_page": "78",
  "last_page": "80",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "152 Ill. App. 78"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "232 Ill. 112",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5639073
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/232/0112-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "34 Ill. App. 112",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4995146
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/34/0112-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 253,
    "char_count": 3524,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.505,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1470714479089456e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5804911792154678
    },
    "sha256": "b77a117242f3e342c65a3c5052829c62e6aa53caa0247c372b8d4447e721d6c3",
    "simhash": "1:9a575c2192bea899",
    "word_count": 625
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:55:41.765695+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Harry Hill, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Mack\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nDefendant, who was police officer at a picnic which he says was held on August 26, 1907, hut which the complaining witness says was held in the early part of August, was found guilty of bastardy. The evidence of the complaining witness was that she had intercourse with him at his house on the night of the picnic, and that she never had intercourse with any one at any other time. Her sister corroborates her as to the defendant\u2019s friendly relations with her at the picnic. The child was born May 1, 1908. On March 24, 1908, she told him of her condition. Defendant denied having had sexual relations with her.\nWe cannot on these facts say that the verdict finding defendant to be the father of the child is against the preponderance of the evidence, or that it is impossible for him to be the father of a child born after such a short period of gestation, even assuming the sexual act to have occurred on August 26.\nThe statement in People v. Pike, 34 Ill. App. 112, that the usual duration is from 260 to 308 days, is not the statement of a rule of law but of a rule of nature, subject to many exceptions of which the court takes judicial notice.\nThat the Municipal Court of Chicago has jurisdiction not merely to hold the accused over to the Criminal Court but to hear bastardy cases is settled by the amendment to the Municipal Court Act approved June 3, 1907, and adopted at an election held September 17, 1907. Section 50-A, Laws of Illinois 1907, p. 225. If the amendment were inconsistent with the amendment to the Bastardy Act adopted February 17, 1907, Laws of Ills., 1907, p. 56, it would nevertheless, as the later enactment, prevail. The two acts, however, are in no sense conflicting.\nA similar answer must be given to the contention that oral instructions are not permitted in the Municipal Court. The new Practice Act (Laws of Ill. 1907, p. 443) and the amendment to section 37 of the Municipal Court Act were approved on the same day. To reconcile them, provisions in the former act conflicting with those in the latter, must be held to be inapplicable in the Municipal Court.\nThe evidence fully establishes the venue inasmuch as the intercourse occurred and the child was born in the city of Chicago. It is unnecessary specifically to recite this in the finding.\nThe validity of section 25 of the Municipal Court Act is determined in City of Chicago v. Knobel, 232 Ill. 112. The jury was properly drawn.\nThe judgment will be affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Mack"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "S. A. T. Watkins, for plaintiff in error.",
      "John E. W. Wayman and Thomas G. Vent, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Harry Hill, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 14,906.\n1. Bastardy\u2014when verdict not set aside. The rule of nature that the usual period of gestation is from 260 to 308 days is not followed as a rule of law. Held, in this case, under the evidence that the verdict of the jury should not be disturbed.\n2. Municipal Court\u2014jurisdiction in bastardy. The Municipal Court of Chicago has jurisdiction not merely to hold one accused of bastardy over to the Criminal Court but to hear and determine such a cause.\n3. Municipal Court\u2014oral instructions authorized. Oral instructions may properly he given in cases tried in the Municipal Court of Chicago.\nBastardy proceeding. Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Frank Crowe, Judge, presiding, Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1908.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 7, 1909.\nS. A. T. Watkins, for plaintiff in error.\nJohn E. W. Wayman and Thomas G. Vent, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0078-01",
  "first_page_order": 96,
  "last_page_order": 98
}
