{
  "id": 2890436,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Christian H. Schaeffer, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Schaeffer",
  "decision_date": "1915-03-23",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,035",
  "first_page": "80",
  "last_page": "81",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "192 Ill. App. 80"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 165,
    "char_count": 1936,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.499,
    "sha256": "aa0996b574bfc1d83a8219d58bb32c5710aa1370e7f1b1d459f360a07fe9a961",
    "simhash": "1:d77c51206017b8fd",
    "word_count": 329
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:32:59.384140+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. Christian H. Schaeffer, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "A. L. Williams, for plaintiff in error; George H. Sugrue, of counsel.",
      "Maclay Hoyne and Edward E. Wilson, for defendant in error; Malcolm B. Sterrett, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Christian H. Schaeffer, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 20,035.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Jacob H. Hopkins, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 23, 1915.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Adultery, \u00a7 4 \u2014when information sufficient. It is not necessary that an information charging adultery charge that the parties were not married to one another.\n2. Adultery, \u00a7 5*\u2014when evidence sufficient. On an information for adultery, where the evidence shows that each of the parties was married and knew the other was; that defendant was living separate and apart from his wife, and the woman from her husband; that defendant had rented rooms in different parts of Chicago at different times and occupied them with her and that in some of the places she took his name; that in one of the places there was only one bed; that both of them were seen in the room in their night clothes; that the place in which they lived when the information was filed and during the trial was rented in their joint names and was occupied by both of them, it is sufficient to warrant a conviction of adultery, even though they deny illicit relationship and that they occupied the same room.\nStatement of the Case.\nInformation by the People of the State of Illinois, plaintiff, against Christian H. Schaeffer, defendant, charging him with living in adultery with one May Armstrong.\nTo reverse a judgment of conviction defendant prosecutes this writ of error.\nA. L. Williams, for plaintiff in error; George H. Sugrue, of counsel.\nMaclay Hoyne and Edward E. Wilson, for defendant in error; Malcolm B. Sterrett, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0080-01",
  "first_page_order": 104,
  "last_page_order": 105
}