{
  "id": 5320550,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Jacob Levin et al., Plaintiffs in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Levin",
  "decision_date": "1911-01-13",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 15,162",
  "first_page": "430",
  "last_page": "431",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "159 Ill. App. 430"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "86 Ill. 176",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2770619
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/86/0176-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 Ill. 566",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        438648
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/18/0566-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 234,
    "char_count": 3161,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.538,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.157883142994051
    },
    "sha256": "c944188e7daa4a65182dd04e9ace2b7c9a995ea2f6acb154e177f87ea78003d7",
    "simhash": "1:56ea199ad47e8ef7",
    "word_count": 548
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:33:35.030835+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. Jacob Levin et al., Plaintiffs in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Mack\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nPlaintiffs in error are principal and surety in a recognizance taken by a Judge of the Municipal Court, after commitment to jail, conditioned on appearance' in the Criminal Court. On the call of the case aft\u00e9r indictment, the recognizance was forfeited for failure to appear, and the judgment of forfeiture was subsequently made absolute after default by both defendants on a scire facias issued out of the Criminal Court and served by reading to one defendant and returned as to the other defendant, \u201cthe other within named defendant not found in my county. \u2019 \u2019\nNo brief has been filed on behalf of defendant in error. We have carefully considered the brief of plaintiffs in error and cannot concur in the views therein expressed.\n1st. Whether or not the Municipal Court in February, 1907, had jurisdiction in preliminary examinations is immaterial. Under the Criminal Code, R. S., ch. 38, div. III, sec. 6, \u201cany judge\u201d could take a recognizance in the case of a person committed to jail on a criminal charge. While the Municipal Court had no jurisdiction, under the Municipal Court Act, to try a criminal case unless it appeared in the record that the crime was committed in Chicago, a judge of that or any other State court could, under the Criminal Code, take a recognizance for the appearance of the accused in the proper court.\n2nd. The charge need not be set out in the recognizance or in the writ with the particularity necessary in an indictment; it is sufficient if it identifies the offense. In our judgment the charge of \u201charboring a female under 18 years of age in a house of prostitution,\u201d identifies the offense covered by the Act of June 3, 1889, see. 3 (Laws of 1889, p. 112; Hurd R. S., ed. of 1909, p. 763, sec. 57d), at least as fully as do the words, \u201cstealing from the store\u201d of X identify the charge of larceny. Young v. People, 18 Ill. 566. Or the words, \u201cthe crime of selling liquor without license,\u201d identify the offense of selling intoxicating liquor in a less quantity than one gallon, not having a license to keep a dramshop. Compton v. People, 86 Ill. 176. Especially is this so on writ of error after default. Compton v. People, supra.\n3rd. The return of the sheriff satisfies, in our judgment, the statutory requirement that \u201cin case the person cannot be found by the sheriff, he shall make return of that fact to the court.\u201d\n'Affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Mack"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Edward H. Morris, for plaintiffs in error.",
      "John E. W. Wayman, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Jacob Levin et al., Plaintiffs in Error.\nGen. No. 15,162.\nRecognizances\u2014who may take in criminal cases. Notwithstanding it may not appear that the crime charged was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the city of Chicago, a judge of the Municipal Court of Chicago has authority under the Criminal Code to take a recognizance for the appearance of the accused in the proper court.\nError to the Criminal Court of Cook county; the Hon. George Kersten, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1909.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed January 13, 1911.\nEdward H. Morris, for plaintiffs in error.\nJohn E. W. Wayman, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0430-01",
  "first_page_order": 448,
  "last_page_order": 449
}