{
  "id": 880115,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Inez Jackson, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Jackson",
  "decision_date": "1913-06-30",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 18,149",
  "first_page": "713",
  "last_page": "715",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "181 Ill. App. 713"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "76 Ill. 265",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5316267
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/76/0265-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 221,
    "char_count": 4253,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.56,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.031050651987818596
    },
    "sha256": "b4f657e13fecb9b0a8a34c08707d62f3efff51a2272578c155ef76a14f034640",
    "simhash": "1:c47f4c3231a9a75d",
    "word_count": 718
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:28:55.892129+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. Inez Jackson, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Baume\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nUpon a trial in the Municipal Court by the court without a jury plaintiff in error was convicted of the offense of pandering and sentenced to imprisonment in the house of correction for one year and to pay a fine of $300 and costs of prosecution.\nIt is urged that the information fails to charge any offense and that the court erred in overruling motions interposed by plaintiff in error to quash the same and in arrest of judgment.\nThere is no appearance by defendant in error in this court.\nThe information charges \u201cthat Inez Jackson late, of the said City of Chicago, heretofore, to-wit: on the 1st day of October, A. D. 1911, at the City of Chicago, aforesaid, did unlawfully cause, induce, persuade or encourage one Carmen Henkel, a female person to become an inmate of a house of prostitution at 3625 Ellis Park, contrary to the form of the statute,\u201d etc.\nThe statute, in so far as- it is here pertinent, provides as follows:\n\u201cAny person who * * * by promises, threats, violence or by any device or scheme, shall cause, induce, persuade or encourage a female person to become an inmate of a house of prostitution * * * shall be guilty of pandering,\u201d etc.\nIt will be observed that the information fails to allege the means, as \u201cby promises, threats, violence or by any device or scheme, \u2019 \u2019 in the language of the statute, whereby plaintiff in error did cause, induce, persuade and encourage a female person to become an inmate of a house of prostitution. The word \u201cunlawfully\u201d employed in the information is not a substitute for or the equivalent of the words omitted, but merely asserts a conclusion of law, and upon the motion to quash, the information should have been held insufficient for a failure to allege the unlawful means employed in the language of the statute.\nFurthermore, by the use of the disjunctive \u201cor\u201d preceding the word \u201cencourage\u201d the information was rendered uncertain and vulnerable to attack upon the motion to quash. 1 Bishop Grim. Proc., secs. 325, 585. Where the word \u201cor\u201d in a statute is used in the sense of \u201cto-wit\u201d it may properly be adopted in framing an information or indictment, but where a statute forbids several things in the alternative, it is usually to be construed as creating but a single offense, and the defendant may be charged with committing all the acts, using the conjunction \u201cand,\u201d where the statute uses the disjunctive \u201cor.\u201d Blemer v. People, 76 Ill. 265.\nThe motion to quash the information should have been sustained, and the judgment of the Municipal Court is reversed and the cause remanded.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Baume"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Louis Greenberg, for plaintiff in error.",
      "No appearance for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Inez Jackson, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 18,149.\n1. Pandering\u2014insufficiency of information. Where an information for pandering fails to allege the means, as \u2018 \u2018 by promises, threats, violence, or by any device or scheme\u201d in the language of the statute, whereby a female person became an inmate of a house of prostitution, and uses the word 1 \u2018 unlawfully \u201d as a substitute or equivalent, on motion to quash the information will be held insufficient.\n2. Pandering\u2014sufficiency of information. Where a pandering statute provides that any person who by certain means \u20181 shall cause, induce, persuade or encourage\u201d a female person to enter a house of prostitution, etc., an information in such language using the word \u201cor\u201d after the \u201cpersuade\u201d is rendered uncertain and vulnerable to attack on motion to quash; the word \u201cand\u201d should be used.\n3. Indictments and informations\u2014disjunctives. Where the word \u201cor\u201d in a statute is used in the sense of \u201cto-wit,\u201d it may properly be adopted in framing an information or indictment, but where a statute forbids several things in the alternative, it is usually to be construed as creating but a single offense, and the defendant may be charged with committing all the acts, using the conjunction \u201cand\u201d where the statute uses the disjunctive \u201cor.\u201d\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Sheridan E. Fry, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1913.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed June 30, 1913.\nLouis Greenberg, for plaintiff in error.\nNo appearance for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0713-01",
  "first_page_order": 739,
  "last_page_order": 741
}
