{
  "id": 5373459,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Max Glabman, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Glabman",
  "decision_date": "1916-01-17",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,762",
  "first_page": "508",
  "last_page": "510",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "197 Ill. App. 508"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "257 Ill. 443",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        4718418
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/257/0443-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "162 Ill. App. 454",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2731004
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/162/0454-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 246,
    "char_count": 5308,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.542,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15854379927169499
    },
    "sha256": "be5dbe1661114d1728843628df1955a5f24a953a6f972a93f9641b7c8e32abf1",
    "simhash": "1:effeec16ba27a23f",
    "word_count": 893
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:24:45.151974+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. Max Glabman, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Holdom\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nPlaintiff in error was convicted under an information filed October 9,1914, charging him with wife abandonment. The charge was that plaintiff in error wrongfully and without good cause abandoned his wife and neglected and refuses to maintain and provide for her. The information was in the terms of the statute then in force, being section 24, ch. 68, Rev. St. (J. & A. 3431). This conviction is before us for review.\nPlaintiff in error contends that it was necessary for the State to allege and prove that his wife was \u201cin destitute or necessitous circumstances,\u201d and cites People v. Bos, 162 Ill. App. 454, as sustaining authority. The statute cited in the Bos case, supra, is the same as that under which Glabman was convicted. That statute provides for two classes of cases, one the abandonment of the wife and the other the abandonment of children. The statute is in the disjunctive, and reads as to the wife, \u201cevery person who shall without good cause abandon his wife and neglect and refuse to maintain and provide for her, \u2019 \u2019 and as to the children continues, \u201cor who shall abandon his or her minor child or children under the age of 12 years, in destitute or necessitous circumstances.\u201d The leaving \u201cin destitute or necessitous circumstances\u201d applies to the abandonment of child or children, and the abandoning of the wife and the refusing and neglecting to provide for her without good cause constitute the crime of wife abandonment under the Act of 1903.\nThe Bos case, supra, is not binding upon us on this review, and as it was not in our opinion well decided it has no appealing force. The Act of 1915, which does require that the wife be in necessitous or destitute circumstances to constitute the crime of abandonment, has no application to Gflabman\u2019s prosecution, as it has no retroactive effect. Clubman\u2019s conviction must be measured by the statute as it existed at the time the information was filed.\nThe People v. Heise, 257 Ill. 443, governs this case. In that case it was held that to constitute the crime of wife abandonment three things must concur\u2014 abandonment of the wife, and neglect and refusal to maintain her. The information charged all that was necessary to constitute the crime of wife abandonment under the statute then in force, and the proof sustaining the charge in the information, the trial Judge rightfully convicted Glabman.\nThe judgment of the Municipal Court being without error, is aErmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Holdom"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Roderick & Roderick, 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. Max Glabman, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 21,762.\n1. Husband and wife, \u00a7 274 \u2014when State need not prove that wife at time of abandonment was \u201cin destitute or necessitous circumstances.\u201d Hurd\u2019s Rev. St., ch. 68, sec. 24 (J. & A. If 3431), providing that \u201cevery person who shall without good cause abandon his wife and neglect and refuse to maintain and provide for her, or who shall abandon his or her minor child or children under the age of 12 years, in destitute or necessitous circumstances,\u201d shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, does not require the State to prove, in order to obtain a conviction for wife abandonment under the statute, that at the time of the abandonment charged the wife was in \u201cdestitute or necessitous circumstances,\u201d the statute being disjunctive, providing two classes of cases, the abandonment of the wife and the abandonment of the children, so that the words \u201cin destitute and necessitous circumstances\u201d apply only to the second class of cases, leaving the first class to consist of abandonment of the wife without good cause, and refusing and neglecting to provide for her.\n2. Husband and wife, \u00a7 272 \u2014statute on wife abandonment not retroactive. The Act of 1915 providing that every person who shall, without any reasonable cause, neglect or refuse to provide for the support of his wife, said wife being in destitute or necessitous circumstances, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, has no retroactive effect and cannot apply to a prosecution for a similar misdemeanor commenced before the act went into effect.\n3. Statutes, \u00a7 252 \u2014when criminal statutes not retroactive. In a criminal case a conviction must be measured by the statute as it existed when the information was filed.\n4. Husband and wife, \u00a7 272 \u2014what are elements of offense of wife abandonment. Under Hurd\u2019s Rev. St., ch. 68, sec. 24 (J. & A. If 3431), the elements necessary to a conviction are abandonment of the wife and neglect and refusal to maintain her.\n5. Husband and wife, \u00a7 275 \u2014when judgment of conviction for wife abandonment sustained. A conviction is proper in an information charging defendant with wife abandonment, under Hurd\u2019s Rev. St., ch. 68, sec. 24 (J. & A. If 3431), where the information charges all which is necessary to constitute the crime alleged under the statute then in force and where the evidence sustains the charge in the information.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph Sabath, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed January 17, 1916.\nRoderick & Roderick, for plaintiff in error.\nMaclay Hoyne, for defendant in error; Edward E. Wilson, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0508-01",
  "first_page_order": 530,
  "last_page_order": 532
}