{
  "id": 2850085,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Samuel Roth, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Roth",
  "decision_date": "1914-02-04",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 19,591",
  "first_page": "162",
  "last_page": "163",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "185 Ill. App. 162"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 247,
    "char_count": 3404,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.533,
    "sha256": "11ef8bfd2a7e7846dbfd4802754db97344533797c61111d84e2605bacfc3d434",
    "simhash": "1:5f564ebcd30fe6fd",
    "word_count": 577
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:43:38.716309+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. Samuel Roth, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Duncan\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Duncan"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Moses, Rosenthal & Kennedy, for plaintiff in error; Walter Bachrach, of counsel.",
      "John P. Reed, for defendant in error; Charles J. Herman, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Samuel Roth, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 19,591.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William N. Gemmill, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1913.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed February 4, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nInformation filed by The People of the State of Illinois against Alexander Weiss (the name of Samuel Both being later substituted as defendant by agreement) charging that the defendant, as manager of a restaurant, unlawfully permitted one Agnieszka Mystak, a female, to work more than ten hours a day, and charging that defendant failed to keep an accurate time record showing the hours of employment of females, contrary to statute. Defendant waived a jury trial and the court found him guilty in the manner and form as charged. Judgment was entered requiring that defendant pay a fine of one hundred dollars and the costs of the suit and that he stand committed to the House of Correction until the fine and costs are paid. To reverse the judgment, defendant brings error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Indictment and information, \u00a7 29 \u2014sufficiency of informa;tion for violation of act limiting the hours of employment of f\u00e9males. In a prosecution for violation of sections 123 and 125, ch. 48, Hurd\u2019s R. S. 1911, J. & A. 5290, 5293, it should be averred and proved that the defendant was the employer of the female employe, or it should be proved that he was an accessory before the fact under a proper information.\n2. Indictment and information, \u00a7 67 \u2014when name of person against whom offense toas committed should, he proved as laid. It is essential in all prosecutions that both the Christian and the surname of the party against whom the alleged offense was committed should be proved as laid in the indictment or information.\n3. Indictment and information, \u00a7 74 \u2014when variance as to name of party is fatal. Where an information charges that an alleged crime was committed against Agnieszka Mystak and the proof shows that the offense was committed against Agnes Myslak or Agnes Lyslak, held that there was a fatal variance.\n4. Criminal law, \u00a7 417 \u2014when question of variance need not he raised in trial court. It is immaterial that the question of variance was not raised on the trial where the name of the party against whom the offense was committed was not proved as laid in the information.\n5. Criminal law, \u00a7 372 \u2014when failure of judgment to specify offense of which defendant was found guilty not fatal. Where the court finds defendant guilty on an information which charges in one count two distinct offenses punishable with different penalties, failure of court to specify the offense of which defendant is found guilty and to make the judgment correctly describe the offense in its recitals, held mere informalities and not fatal within them-0 selves, the finding of the court being that the defendant is \u201cguilty in manner and form as charged in the information,\u201d and it clearly appearing from the judgment for what offense the court found.\nMoses, Rosenthal & Kennedy, for plaintiff in error; Walter Bachrach, of counsel.\nJohn P. Reed, for defendant in error; Charles J. Herman, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0162-01",
  "first_page_order": 188,
  "last_page_order": 189
}