{
  "id": 2796761,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. John V. Paul, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Paul",
  "decision_date": "1912-02-21",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 16,314",
  "first_page": "557",
  "last_page": "561",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "167 Ill. App. 557"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "247 Ill. 394",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3397944
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/247/0394-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "246 Ill. 428",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3402251
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/246/0428-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "141 Ill. App. 557",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2619027
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/141/0557-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "211 Ill. 109",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3306085
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/211/0109-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 327,
    "char_count": 6853,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.511,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.177451487707313e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5091119211969501
    },
    "sha256": "9f43f7b9dd09ac6a292c1682273796f8623bc7fcc04ead0b0fe5b67971866391",
    "simhash": "1:9e599e2e12562574",
    "word_count": 1159
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:43:24.567643+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. John V. Paul, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Baume\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nTo an information filed in the Municipal Court charging that plaintiff in error on or about November 6, 1909, \u201cdid knowingly and unlawfully procure, persuade and encourage a female inmate, to wit: Marie Thiel, for a house of prostitution,\u201d the plaintiff in error entered his plea of guilty, and was thereupon sentenced to imprisonment in the house of correction for six months and to pay a fine of $300 and costs of prosecution.\nThe judgment of the court as entered recites in part that plaintiff in error \u201cis guilty of the criminal offense of causing, inducing, persuading or encouraging a female person to become an inmate of a house of prostitution, on said plea of guilty.\u201d This writ of error is prosecuted to reverse such judgment of conviction.\nIt is claimed that the information was sworn to by a private citizen and does not bear the endorsement of a judge of the Municipal Court, as provided by section 27 of the Municipal Court Act, as follows: \u201cBefore an information is filed by any person other than the Attorney General or State\u2019s Attorney, one of the judges of the Municipal Court,shall examine the information and may examine the person presenting the same and require other evidence and satisfy himself that there is probable cause for filing the same and so endorse the same.\u201d Predicated upon this iclaim it is insisted that the information was void and did not give the court jurisdiction of. the case. While we are disposed to hold that such irregularity, if it existed, was waived by plaintiff in error by his plea of guilty, the abstract of the record does not present the question for review. The abstract does not disclose that the information was verified by a private person, or that it was filed by any person other than Attorney General or State\u2019s Attorney, or that it was not endorsed by a judge of the Municipal Court.\nThe abstract of the record is the pleading of the party seeking to have such record reviewed upon appeal or by writ of error, and the error relied upon to effect a reversal of the judgment must be made to appear by such abstract. Gage v. City of Chicago, 211 Ill. 109.\nIt is next urged that, \u201cthe information charges no offense and that it is repugnant to and at variance with the finding and judgment of the court.\u201d The information charges that plaintiff in error did \u201cprocure, persuade and encourage a female inmate, to wit: Marie Thiel, for a house of prostitution.\u201d The act in relation to pandering, provides in part as follows: \u201cAny person who shall procure a female inmate for a house of prostitution * * * shall be guilty of pandering, and * * * shall be punished,\u201d etc. B. S. (1909), 763.\nThe information is in the language of the statute, with the words, \u201cpersuade and encourage,\u201d added, and the name of the female interpolated. It formally charges that plaintiff in error procured a female inmate, to wit: Marie Thiel, for a house of prostitution. Interpolating the name of the person icharged to have been procured as an inmate for a house of prostitution, did not operate to change the character of the offense named in the statute.\nThe record discloses that upon being arraigned to plead to the information, plaintiff in error pleaded thereto, that he was \u201cguilty in manner and form as charged in said information.\u201d The sentence imposed upon plaintiff in error is the sentence authorized by the statute to be imposed upon conviction of the offense charged ,in the information. The fact that through carelessness, inadvertence or ignorance the record is made to say that plaintiff in error \u201cis guilty of the criminal offense of causing, inducing, persuading or encouraging a female person to become an inmate of a house of prostitution, on said plea of guilty,\u201d does not change the effect of the plea of plaintiff in error, theretofore entered, to the information. The portion of the record last quoted may be wholly disregarded as surplusage. The judgment of conviction was upon the plea to the information alone, and is responsive to such plea.\nIt is finally urged that the Municipal Court is without jurisdiction in criminal cases wherein the punishment upon conviction must be by both fine and imprisonment, and People v. Dada, 141 Ill. App. 557, is cited in support of such position. The record involved in the Dada case was made prior to the amendment in 1907 of the Municipal Court Act, whereby the jurisdiction of said court was extended to include, \u2018 all other criminal cases which the laws in force from time to time may permit to be prosecuted otherwise than on indictment by a grand jury.\u201d\nThe jurisdiction of the Municipal Court in criminal prosecutions under the statute here involved was expressly recognized and upheld in People v. Braun, 246 Ill. 428, and People v. Jacobson, 247 Ill. 394.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Baume"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. Gr. Anderson, for plaintiff in error.",
      "John E. W. Wayman, for defendant in error; Zach Hofheimer, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. John V. Paul, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 16,314.\n1. Information\u2014effect of absence of endorsement. Seld, inferentially, that a plea of guilty waives the endorsement by a judge of the municipal court required by statute, as well as other irregularities.\n2. Information\u2014when sufficiently charges crime of pandering. An information in the language of the statute is sufficient. Interpolating the name of the person charged to have been procured as an inmate for a house of prostitution does not operate to change the character of the offense named in the statute.\n3. Appeals and errors\u2014what abstract should show. Upon appeal the abstract should show the matters upon which error is assigned.\n4. Judgment\u2014when form of judgment in prosecution for pandering will not reverse. If the information charges pandering and a plea of guilty to such information is interposed, and the sentence imposed upon the defendant was the sentence authorized by the statute to be imposed upon conviction of the offense charged in the information, the fact that through carelessness the record is made to say that the defendant \u201cis guilty of the criminal offense of causing, inducing, persuading or encouraging a female person to become an inmate of a house of prostitution on said plea of guilty,\u201d does not change the effect of the plea of the defendant and the improper language of the judgment will be-rejected as surplusage.\n5. Municipal Court\u2014what within criminal jurisdiction since amendment of 1907. The municipal court has jurisdiction in criminal cases-wherein the punishment upon conviction must be by both fine and imprisonment.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Hugh R. Stewart, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1910.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed February 21, 1912.\nW. Gr. Anderson, for plaintiff in error.\nJohn E. W. Wayman, for defendant in error; Zach Hofheimer, of counsel."
  },
  "file_name": "0557-01",
  "first_page_order": 577,
  "last_page_order": 581
}