{
  "id": 2763586,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Mary Barrett, Defendant in Error, v. August Anders, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "People ex rel. Barrett v. Anders",
  "decision_date": "1912-10-07",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 17,713",
  "first_page": "561",
  "last_page": "562",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "173 Ill. App. 561"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 122,
    "char_count": 1784,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.516,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.871964132982944e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4598020965701089
    },
    "sha256": "9aeb452ca28f96ae750642675b23123e4cdaad69ab591e295b4a1f937bb5143b",
    "simhash": "1:97db5c02d87ebebd",
    "word_count": 286
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:18:39.035248+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Mary Barrett, Defendant in Error, v. August Anders, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Smith\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was found guilty in a prosecution under the statute upon a complaint for bastardy.\nThe errors complained of are that the Municipal Court of Chicago had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter ; that after the trial began a supplemental complaint was filed alleging the birth of the child, which submitted another issue to the jury, on which the defendant did not plead, and that the defendant was erroneously ordered to pay the costs. We think that the Municipal Court had jurisdiction under the Municipal Court Act; also that even if the proceeding was irregular as to the supplemental complaint, the defendant, proceeding in the trial without objection, waived same. The costs followed the conviction under the statute.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Smith"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Lee & Lee, 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 ex rel. Mary Barrett, Defendant in Error, v. August Anders, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 17,713.\n1. Municipal court\u2014jurisdiction of bastardy. The Municipal Court of Chicago has jurisdiction of a prosecution under the statute for bastardy.\n2. Bastardy\u2014waiver of irregularity. If a proceeding in a prosecution for bastardy is irregular as to the filing of a supplemental complaint after the beginning of the trial, alleging the birth of the child, such irregularity is waived where the defendant proceeds to trial without objection.\n3. Costs\u2014bastardy. Costs follow a conviction under the bastardy statute.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago: the Hon. Chas. N. Goodnow, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1911.\nOpinion filed October 7, 1912.\nLee & Lee, for plaintiff in error.\nJohn E. W. Wayman, for defendant in error; Zach Hofheimer, of counsel."
  },
  "file_name": "0561-01",
  "first_page_order": 579,
  "last_page_order": 580
}
