{
  "id": 2889524,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Harry Martin, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Martin",
  "decision_date": "1915-04-28",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,605",
  "first_page": "485",
  "last_page": "486",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "192 Ill. App. 485"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 197,
    "char_count": 2306,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.536,
    "sha256": "ca67735daf3639bd7492785d74df4af6e04aa3f1aa7f6f84c0496a46841d7ea2",
    "simhash": "1:627fd8bc771fb9bb",
    "word_count": 381
  },
  "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. Harry Martin, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Baume\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Vagrancy, \u00a7 1 \u2014when information sufficient after verdict. An information charging vagrancy substantially in the language of the statute, held sufficient after verdict, no objection having been interposed below, nor demand for bill of particulars filed.\n2. Criminal law, \u00a7 416*\u2014when objections to evidence must be made below. Questions relating to the competency of evidence cannot be raised for the first time in a court of review.\n3. Vagrancy, \u00a7 1*\u2014when evidence sustains conviction. In a prosecution for vagrancy, where the State shows that defendant had no employment and no visible means of support, the facts being peculiarly within his knowledge, in the absence of any credible proof by him of such fact the jury are warranted in finding that he had no lawful means of support.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Baume"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. A. Lantz, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Maclay Hoyne, for defendant in error; Edward E. Wilson and John E. Herren, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Harry Martin, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 20,605.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Charles H. Bowles, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 28, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\nProsecution by The People of the State of Illinois in the Municipal Court of Chicago against Harry Martin, on an information charging that the defendant was an idle and dissolute person; was a pilferer; did habitually neglect his employment and calling and did not provide for himself; was an idle and dissolute person and neglected all lawful business and did habitually misspend his time by frequenting houses of ill fame and tippling shops without giving a good account of himself; is known to be a thief, or pickpocket, having no lawful means of support, and was habitually found prowling around places of public amusement, stores, shops or crowded thoroughfares, cars, tippling houses, contrary to the form of the statute and against the peace and dignity of the People of Illinois. To reverse a judgment of conviction, defendant brings \"error.\nW. A. Lantz, for plaintiff in error.\nMaclay Hoyne, for defendant in error; Edward E. Wilson and John E. Herren, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, anti Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0485-01",
  "first_page_order": 509,
  "last_page_order": 510
}