{
  "id": 2921509,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Delia Butler, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Butler",
  "decision_date": "1917-10-31",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,007",
  "first_page": "126",
  "last_page": "128",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "208 Ill. App. 126"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 150,
    "char_count": 2693,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.533,
    "sha256": "b5e39969e6ee0e52d6b7e5517de59ee95d5385b9f32a9a8b76e3ce04d11f4107",
    "simhash": "1:97656ab31b2ffabc",
    "word_count": 459
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:40:32.195438+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. Delia Butler, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Goodwin\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nIn this case, plaintiff in error was tried on an information charging her with being the keeper of a house of prostitution, and evidence was offered tending to substantiate that charge. The court, however, entered a judgment adjudging her guilty of the criminal offense of being an inmate of a house of ill fame for the practice of fornication.\nThere is, in our opinion, a fatal variance between the information and the judgment. By the information she was required to meet only the charge that she was a keeper of a house of prostitution; the judgment convicts her of having been guilty of a totally different charge, which the information did not require her to meet. The difference is in substance, and not merely in form.\nFor the defendant in error it is contended that the word \u201ckeeper,\u201d in the information, was used inadvertently, and that the trial was conducted upon the assumption that she was tried as having been an inmate. An examination of the statement of the case, however, shows that the prosecution was not conducted on that theory.\nIt is further contended that the evidence was clearly sufficient to show that she was guilty of the offense named in the judgment. \u25a0 This, in our opinion, is entirely immaterial, for plaintiff in error was not required to offer evidence to meet any charge except the one named in the information.\nThe judgment of the Municipal Court is reversed.\nUever sed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Goodwin"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "P. R. Boylan, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Maclay Hoyne, for defendant in error; John F. Cashen, Jr., of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Delia Butler, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 23,007.\n1. Prostitution, \u00a7 3a*\u2014what constitutes fatal variance between information and judgment. There is a fatal variance between an information which charges defendant with being the keeper of a house of prostitution, to substantiate which evidence is offered, and a judgment which finds defendant guilty of the offense of being an inmate of a house of ill fame for the practice of fornication.\n2. Prostitution, \u00a7 4c*\u2014when variance between information and judgment is not cured. The variance between an information which charges a defendant with being the keeper of a house of prostitution and a judgment which finds her guilty of being an inmate of a house of ill fame for the practice of fornication, is not cured by the fact that the evidence is sufficient to show her guilty of the offense named in the judgment.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Harry M. Fischer, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1917.\nReversed.\nOpinion filed October 31, 1917.\nP. R. Boylan, for plaintiff in error.\nMaclay Hoyne, for defendant in error; John F. Cashen, Jr., of counsel."
  },
  "file_name": "0126-01",
  "first_page_order": 150,
  "last_page_order": 152
}