{
  "id": 2858195,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Edward Leoni, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Leoni",
  "decision_date": "1916-03-27",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,743",
  "first_page": "376",
  "last_page": "378",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "198 Ill. App. 376"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 327,
    "char_count": 6212,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.546,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1721492414244504e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5866731998660926
    },
    "sha256": "d81c5d6b0774147cd093c101df4997e0678f15f5272b66168c3e93e956b909c9",
    "simhash": "1:ce6fa538337a54b0",
    "word_count": 1055
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:11:33.440984+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. Edward Leoni, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Holdom\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n5. Prostitution, \u00a7 3a \u2014when information charging defendant with being an inmate of house of ill fame sufficient. On the contention that an information charging defendant with being an inmate of a house of ill fame does not charge that such act is unlawful, held it is sufficient if the charge is in the language of the statute and the statute made the act charged unlawful.\n6. Prostitution, \u00a7 4*\u2014when evidence presumed to sustain charge in information. Where the evidence in a prosecution for being an inmate of a house of ill fame is not in the record before the court of review, all intendments must be indulged necessary to sustain the charge in the information.\n7. Appeal and error, \u00a7 198*\u2014lack of jurisdiction of Appellate Court in constitutional matters. The Appellate Court has no jurisdiction to determine constitutional questions.\n8. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1265*\u2014when Appellate Court will presume statute constitutional. The Appellate Court will presume that a criminal statute is constitutional, as it has no jurisdiction over constitutional questions.\n9. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1718*\u2014when constitutional question waived. Where the constitutionality of a criminal statute is involved, the review should be prosecuted to the Supreme Court, and seeking a review by the Appellate Court waives any constitutional question which might otherwise be raised.\n10. Costs, \u00a7 122*\u2014when culprit may be sent to House of Correction for nonpayment of costs. Hurd\u2019s Rev. St., ch. 38, sec. 452 (J. & A. jf 4152), authorizes imprisonment for the nonpayment of fines or costs, and section 448 of such chapter (J. & A. If 4148) provides that where jail sentences may be imposed upon defendants, the court may send the culprit to the House of Correction.\n11. Criminal law, \u00a7 391*\u2014how statute authorizing working out fine and costs in House of Correction construed. Hurd\u2019s Rev. St., ch. 38, sec. 448, (J. & A. If 4148) providing that the fine and costs imposed on a culprit sentenced to the House of Correction for nonpayment of such fine and costs may be \u201cworked out\u201d at the rate of $1.50 per day, is in the interest of the convicted person, as it minimizes his term of imprisonment.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Holdom"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Benjamin E. Cohen, 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. Edward Leoni, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 21,743.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Rufus F. Robinson, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 27, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nProsecution by the People of the State of Illinois against Edward Leoni. From a judgment convicting him of being an inmate of a house of prostitution, defendant brings error. '\nThe prosecution was brought under section 57 a\u20141, ch. 38, Rev. St. 1915 [Cal. Ill. St. Supp. 1916, ff 3591 (1)].\nA jury\" being waived, the trial judge after hearing the evidence found defendant guilty of the criminal offense of being an inmate of a house of ill fame kept for the purpose of fornication and fixed his punishment at thirty days\u2019 imprisonment in the House of Correction, the payment of a fine of $100 and costs of the prosecution, taxed at $6.50, in default of payment of which defendant was to be detained in the House of Correction until the fine and costs were worked out at the rate of $1.50 per day, or until discharged by due process of law as by statute provided.\nOnly the statutory record was brought before the Appellate Court. The errors complained of were said to be encompassed within this record. The prosecution was by information. The statute which defendant was charged with offending went into force July 1, 1915. Defendant contended that the information stated no offense where it charged that defendant \u201con. the 7th day of August, A. D. 1915, at the City of Chicago aforesaid, at, to-wit: 1259 W. Madison street, was then and there an inmate of a house of ill fame or assignation or prostitution or lewdness, contrary to the statute.\u201d The contention was that the charges being in the disjunctive are insufficient to charge any offense of which defendant can be convicted, and that the venue in the caption of the information is no part of the information. Defendant voluntarily went to trial upon the information without objecting to its sufficiency or moving to quash.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Criminal law, \u00a7 506 \u2014when presumed that evidence sufficient to sustain conviction and judgment. Where only the statutory record in a criminal prosecution is brought before the Appellate Court and all the errors complained of are said to be encompassed within such record, it will be assumed that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction and judgment if the information warrants the conviction and the judgment is a lawful one.\n2. Prostitution, \u00a7 4c*\u2014when question of insufficiency of information may not he raised on appeal. The objections made for the first time on review that charges in the information charging a person with being an inmate of a house of ill fame, on which he is prosecuted, are in the disjunctive and that the venue in caption of such information is no part of the information, held without force, where defendant did not challenge its sufficiency in any way before the trial court or call for the ruling of the court thereon.\n3. Prostitution, \u00a7 3a*\u2014when information charging occupancy of house of ill fame sufficient. An information charging that defendant was \u201can inmate of a house of ill fame or assignation or prostitution or lewdness,\u201d even though in the disjunctive, charges but one offense in legal effect and intendment.\n4. Indictment and information, \u00a7 13*\u2014venue as part of informa tion. The venue is a part of the information, and the charge that the offense was committed at the \u201cCity of Chicago aforesaid,\u201d by construction refers to the venue as laid in the caption of the information.\nBenjamin E. Cohen, 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.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0376-01",
  "first_page_order": 400,
  "last_page_order": 402
}