{
  "id": 2830755,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Charlie Young, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Young",
  "decision_date": "1913-07-07",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 18,054",
  "first_page": "3",
  "last_page": "4",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "182 Ill. App. 3"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 133,
    "char_count": 1606,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.544,
    "sha256": "286043a1bf3d0a93b1b01a2fd62bfd2b667df8e85d027aca932e553d8bb5d952",
    "simhash": "1:5f76c02d983fb998",
    "word_count": 253
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:04:20.195306+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. Charlie Young, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Brown\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Brown"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Louis Greenberg, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Maclay Hoyne, for defendant in error; Zach Hoeheimer, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Charlie Young, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 18,054.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph Sabath, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1913.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed July 7, 1913.\nStatement of the Case.\nProsecution on information against Charlie Young for pandering. From judgment of sentence to house of correction for six months and to pay a fine of five hundred dollars, defendant brings error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Prostitution, \u00a7 2 \u2014when information charging pandering sufficient. Information charging offense of pandering in the words of the statute is sufficient.\n2. Prostitution, \u00a7 2*\u2014when information charging pandering sufficient. Information charging offense of pandering need not set out facts to show that offense was committed.\n3. Criminal law, \u00a7 366*\u2014insufficiency of information as grounds for motion to arrest judgment. Insufficiency of an information charging pandering cannot be taken advantage of on motion for arrest of judgment.\n4. Criminal law, \u00a7 476*\u2014when evidence presumed sufficient on review. Evidence presumed sufficient when not preserved in the record.\n5. Indictment and information, \u00a7 45*-\u2014Bill of particulars. Defendant may ask for bill of particulars when charge of offense in information is general.\nLouis Greenberg, for plaintiff in error.\nMaclay Hoyne, for defendant in error; Zach Hoeheimer, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XIV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0003-01",
  "first_page_order": 27,
  "last_page_order": 28
}