{
  "id": 880227,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Morris Mansfield, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Mansfield",
  "decision_date": "1913-06-30",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 18,085",
  "first_page": "710",
  "last_page": "713",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "181 Ill. App. 710"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "173 Ill. App. 651",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2761618
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/173/0651-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "172 Ill. App. 360",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5342040
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/172/0360-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "247 Ill. 130",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3398206
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/247/0130-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "239 Ill. 91",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        849015
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/239/0091-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "173 Ill. App. 130",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2761782
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/173/0130-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 275,
    "char_count": 5036,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.544,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0768207311960754e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5612699813772927
    },
    "sha256": "c6d37d48b459a5693e3d6af9944a3557d83c14ccd44fcbd0c02a882d5d1e570d",
    "simhash": "1:8e773410b238e574",
    "word_count": 852
  },
  "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. Morris Mansfield, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Baume\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis writ of error is prosecuted to reverse a judgment of conviction of plaintiff in error in the Municipal Court of the offense of pandering in manner and form as charged in the information. Plaintiff in error waived trial by jury, entered his plea of not guilty, and the trial was by the court. The record contains no bill of exceptions.\nThe only error assigned and argued is that the information fails to charge any offense upon which a judgment of conviction may be predicated.\nThe information charges that Morris Mansfield late of the said City of Chicago, heretofore, to-wit: on or about the 18th day of August, A. D. 1911, at the City of Chicago, aforesaid, did then and there procure a female inmate, for a house of prostitution and did then and there by promises and other devices and schemes, cause, induce, persuade and encourage one Minnie Schneider, a female to become an inmate of a house of prostitution, at the premises known as Mo. 815 W. Monroe Street, in said City of Chicago, and did then and there procure a place as inmate in a house of prostitution for the said Minnie Schneider, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, etc.\nThe statute defining the offense of pandering, so far as it is here pertinent, is as follows:\n\u201cAny person who shall procure a female inmate for a house of prostitution or 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, or shall procure a place as inmate in a house of prostitution for a female person, or * * * , shall be guilty of pandering, and upon a first conviction for an offense under this act shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail or house of correction for a period of not less than six months nor more than one year and by a fine of not less than three hundred dollars and not to exceed one thousand dollars, * * * .\u201d Paragraph 57g, chap. 38, Hurd\u2019s Stat. 1911.\nIt will be observed that each of several separate and distinct offenses is defined by the statute as \u201cpandering.\u201d The several offenses are of the same grade and subject the offender to the same punishment. By the information in question it was evidently purposed to charge plaintiff in error with three separate offenses, (1), procuring a female inmate for a house of prostitution, (2), by promises, threats, violence or by some device or scheme, causing, inducing, persuading and encouraging a female person to become an inmate of a house of prostitution, (3), procuring a place as inmate in a house of prostitution for a female person.\nIt may be conceded that the information is wholly insufficient to charge the first offense, because it fails to designate the female person procured by plaintiff in error as an inmate for a house of prostitution, but this fatal defect or omission does not exist in the information as to the second and third offenses charged. The second offense is charged in the language of the statute and embraces every essential element necessary to be established by the prosecution. With respect to \"the third offense the information does not charge that Minnie Schneider is a female person, but the name \u201cMinnie\u201d imports a person of the female sex. People v. DeMas, 173 Ill. App. 130.\nThe conviction was upon a general finding and may be sustained, although the first offense is defectively charged, where the second offense is sufficiently charged. People v. Smith, 239 Ill. 91; People v. McCann, 247 Ill. 130.\nThe sufficiency of the information was not challenged in the court below. No bill of particulars was requested and no motion for a new trial or in arrest of judgment was interposed. Upon the present record the information is sufficient to sustain the conviction. People v. Greenberg, 172 Ill. App. 360; People v. Yon, 173 Ill. App. 651.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "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. Morris Mansfield, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 18,085.\n1. Pandering\u2014when information charges. An information charging the offense of pandering in the language of the statute is sufficient.\n2. Pandering\u2014when information insufficient. An information charging pandering which fails to designate the female person procured by defendant as an inmate for a house of prostitution is insufficient.\n3. Criminal law\u2014name \u201cMinnie\u201d imports female. In an information for pandering the name \u201cMinnie\u201d imports a person of female sex.\n4'. Pandering\u2014conviction sustained. A conviction upon a general finding for pandering is sustained where two of the three offenses defined in the statute are sufficiently charged though the third offense is insufficiently charged.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Isadore H. Himes, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1913.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 30, 1913.\nLouis Greenberg, for plaintiff in error.\nNo appearance for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0710-01",
  "first_page_order": 736,
  "last_page_order": 739
}