{
  "id": 5416129,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Milton M. Green, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Green",
  "decision_date": "1916-07-20",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,092",
  "first_page": "59",
  "last_page": "60",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "200 Ill. App. 59"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 228,
    "char_count": 3215,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.565,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.7817273071113374e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3009250732378606
    },
    "sha256": "95f1de267245bef0e9b0468b5412470f4c24a465d2219e78d716c967a8841189",
    "simhash": "1:936b188c992dd8f7",
    "word_count": 550
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:50:22.374886+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. Milton M. Green, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McDonald\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McDonald"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Frank H. Novak and Charles Hughes, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Maclay Hoyne, for defendant in error; Ernst Bubbler, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Milton M. Green, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 22,092.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon; Frank H. Graham, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1916.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed July 20, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nInformation by the People of the State of Illinois against Milton M. Green, defendant, charging him with adultery and fornication. Defendant was found guilty of the offense of living in an open state of adultery and fornication with one Mary Williams, and was sentenced to pay a fine of two hundred dollars and costs.\nTo reverse this judgment, this writ of error is prosecuted.\nFrank H. Novak and Charles Hughes, for plaintiff in error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Adulteby, \u00a7 4 \u2014when information not repugnant. An information for adultery and fornication is not open to the objection of repugnancy by reason of charging that the offense was committed by defendant with one \u201cMary Doe whose name to this affiant is unknown.\u201d\n2. Criminal law\u2014when objection to form of verification too late on appeal. The objection to the verification of an information that the words \u201csworn to\u201d are used instead of the words \u201caffirmed to,\u201d relates to a matter of form only and comes too late when first raised on appeal.\n3. Adulteby, \u00a7 4*\u2014when status of companion in adultery need not be shown. In a prosecution on an information charging defendant and another with living together in an open state of adultery and fornication, where there is competent evidence to show that defendant was at the time of the alleged offense a married man and that his wife was then living and had not been divorced from him, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove the status of the woman with whom the offense is charged to have been committed.\n4. Criminal law, \u00a7 227*\u2014when reopening of ease to admit evidence not ground for reversal. Where on a prosecution for adultery and fornication defendant\u2019s wife is called as a witness for the prosecution and over defendant\u2019s objection is permitted to testify to the fact that he is her husband, it is not an abuse of the trial court\u2019s discretion to reopen the case on motion of the prosecution after the case has been closed to permit the introduction of testimony of the brother of defendant\u2019s wife that he was present when the marriage took place.\n5. - Criminal law, \u00a7 538*\u2014when admission of evidence not ground for reversal. Even though the evidence of defendant\u2019s wife was ' incompetent in a prosecution against him, yet where the case was tried without a jury and there is sufficient competent evidence in the record to prove the matter testified to by her, error in admitting her testimony is not ground for reversal.\n6. Adulteby, \u00a7 5*\u2014when evidence sufficient to support judgment. Evidence in a' prosecution for adultery and fornication, examined and held to establish guilt of defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.\nMaclay Hoyne, for defendant in error; Ernst Bubbler, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vois. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0059-01",
  "first_page_order": 81,
  "last_page_order": 82
}