{
  "id": 2875400,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Mary Volska, Defendant in Error, v. Vincent Murphy, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "People ex rel. Volska v. Murphy",
  "decision_date": "1915-12-06",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,250",
  "first_page": "415",
  "last_page": "417",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "195 Ill. App. 415"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 227,
    "char_count": 2951,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.54,
    "sha256": "c9f9f98e585c08d2d6414c71e3f426edff6458349acd6c97083f5ccbfbe14147",
    "simhash": "1:9f55deb9e0a81a3b",
    "word_count": 490
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:01.145099+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Mary Volska, Defendant in Error, v. Vincent Murphy, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Baker\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Baker"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John Curtin, for plaintiff in error; Chauncey N. Clements, of counsel.",
      "Maclay Hoyne and Elmer J. Schnackenberg. for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Mary Volska, Defendant in Error, v. Vincent Murphy, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 21,250.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph S. La Buy, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 6, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\nProsecution by the People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Mary Volska against Vincent Murphy, defendant, in the Municipal Court of Chicago, in which defendant was charged with bastardy. To reverse a judgment of conviction, defendant prosecutes this writ of error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Evidence, \u00a7 45 \u2014what constitutes prima facie proof. Prima facie proof or evidence is that which, standing alone, unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient to maintain the proposition affirmed, and if not rebutted will be sufficient for that purpose.\n2. Bastards, \u00a722 \u2014where evidence sufficient to establish prima fade case. In a prosecution for bastardy, where defendant pleaded the statute of limitations (Hurd\u2019s Rev. St., ch. 17, sec. 16, J. & A. \u00b6 718), providing that \u201cno prosecution under this Act shall be brought after two years from the birth of the bastard child: Provided, the time any person accused shall be absent from the State shall not be computed,\u201d a finding and judgment of conviction held not erroneous, where there was evidence sufficient to prove prima facie that defendant was absent from the State for a period sufficient to prevent the statute from being available in defense, and where defendant offered no evidence to contradict or rebut such prima facie proof.\nDefendant pleaded the statute of limitations. The evidence showed that the child was born May 20, 1911; that a warrant in the bastardy proceeding was issued October 30,1911, but complainant was unable to serve the warrant and the proceeding was abandoned. The complaint in the present case was filed January 21, 1915. The defendant when in Chicago lived with his mother at 92nd street and Buffalo avenue. The relator testified that defendant remained in Chicago up to about the 22nd of September; that he left about October 30, 1911, and she did not see him nor know where he was until September, 1914. The Secretary of the Court of Domestic Relations testified that she went to the neighborhood of 92nd street and Buffalo avenue two or three times a week from the time the child was born to September, 1914, and did not see defendant at any place in Illinois during that time. The witness was not cross-examined nor did defendant offer any testimony to explain or contradict the testimony given for the prosecution.\nJohn Curtin, for plaintiff in error; Chauncey N. Clements, of counsel.\nMaclay Hoyne and Elmer J. Schnackenberg. for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0415-01",
  "first_page_order": 441,
  "last_page_order": 443
}