{
  "id": 2846420,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Paul S. Bennett, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Bennett",
  "decision_date": "1914-03-09",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 19,577",
  "first_page": "316",
  "last_page": "317",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "185 Ill. App. 316"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "248 Ill. 140",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 231,
    "char_count": 3681,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.505,
    "sha256": "4b99b26029ddac34b2d40e8418e82f917fe67c33fc3f5474095284163c558f64",
    "simhash": "1:8b734c70b43fb018",
    "word_count": 630
  },
  "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. Paul S. Bennett, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Brown\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe plaintiff in error was convicted before the Municipal Court of the. city of Chicago of the offense described and made punishable by \u201cAn Act in Relation to Pandering,\u201d approved June 1, 1908, as amended by Act approved July 1, 1908. Among the particular actions described in the act as pandering are \u201cprocuring any female person\u201d \u201cby fraud or artifice or by duress of person or goods or by abuse of any position of confidence or authority\u201d \u201cto enter any place in which prostitution is encouraged or allowed within this State. \u2019 \u2019\nIt was charged by information in the Municipal Court that the plaintiff in error \u201cheretofore, to-wit, on the 5th day of April, A. D. 1913, at the City of Chicago aforesaid, wilfully and unlawfully, by the abuse of his position of confidence, did induce Marie A. Bartelle, a female person, to enter a house, number ten South Baffin street, said house being a place in which prostitution is encouraged and allowed.\u201d\nThe plaintiff in error filed a waiver in writing of a jury trial and was convicted on consideration by the court of \u201cthe testimony of witnesses and arguments of counsel.\u201d\nNo bill of exceptions or record of the evidence in any form was preserved or is before us, but the plaintiff in error relies for reversal on two propositions, neither of which is tenable. He says: First, that the information charges no offense; and, second, that the venue was not laid in the city of Chicago. The reverse of each of these propositions is true. The information charges that \u201cby the abuse of his position of confidence \u2019 \u2019 the plaintiff in error \u2018 \u2018 did induce \u2019 \u2019 the woman named to enter a house where prostitution is encouraged and allowed. This is an offense provided for by the statute. It is argued that a woman may be induced to enter a house of this character for an innocent purpose and that the punishment for such a persuasion without criminal intent would be unconstitutional. It is unnecessary to discuss this argument. The criminal intent would be shown by showing \u201cthe abuse of a position of confidence,\u201d and this, it must be presumed by us, was .shown. It is a part of the offense of which the plaintiff in error was convicted.\nIt is also argued that the word \u201cinduce\u201d used in the information is not equivalent to the word \u201cprocure\u201d used in the statute. We think it is. So did the Supreme Court when deciding People v. VanBever, 248 Ill. 140, cited by the plaintiff in error, as shown by the language used in the opinion. The information alleges that the offense was committed at the city of Chicago. This is a sufficient statement of the venue.\nThe judgment of the Municipal Court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Brown"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "George W. Blackwell, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Maclay Hoyne, for defendant in error; Edward E. Wilson, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Paul S. Bennett, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 19,577.\n1. Indictment and information, \u00a7 34 \u2014when information sufficiently states the venue. An information alleging that the offense was committed in the city of Chicago sufficiently states the venue.\n2. Indictment and information, \u00a7 29 \u2014when information charges the offense of pandering. An information charging that \u201cby the abuse of his position of confidence\u201d the defendant \u201cdid induce\u201d a woman named to enter a house where prostitution is encouraged and allowed, held to charge the offense of pandering.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Jacob H. Hopkins, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1913.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 9, 1914.\nGeorge W. Blackwell, for plaintiff in error.\nMaclay Hoyne, for defendant in error; Edward E. Wilson, of counsel.\nSeo Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, samo topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0316-01",
  "first_page_order": 342,
  "last_page_order": 343
}