{
  "id": 5207928,
  "name": "J. Walter Rose v. The People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Bertie Stansell",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rose v. People ex rel. Stansell",
  "decision_date": "1899-03-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "128",
  "last_page": "131",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "81 Ill. App. 128"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "19 Ill. App. 405",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4906080
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/19/0405-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 266,
    "char_count": 5365,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.531,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5497893788402027e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6744476222358909
    },
    "sha256": "c86ac8c3fc4f6a54a1dc9d354c05726c75c1d25a852ac342454842bda8b901e4",
    "simhash": "1:17255090884cccf9",
    "word_count": 933
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:36:26.617706+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. Walter Rose v. The People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Bertie Stansell."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Creighton\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis was a proceeding begun before a justice of the peace in Washington county by the people, upon complaint of Bertie Sfcansell, charging appellant with bastardy. A preliminary hearing was had before the justice on the 22d day of September, 1897, and appellee was recognized to appear at the January term, 1898, of the County Court of said county.\nAt the January term, 1898, of said court, appellant appeared and moved the court to dismiss the proceedings because the October, November and December terms had intervened between the time of the preliminary hearing before the justice, and said January term, which motion was overruled; appellant excepted, and upon affidavit and motion of appellant the cause was continued to the July term, 1898, at which term a motion was again made by appellant to dismiss, for the reasons in the prior motion assigned, and because, since the January term, 1898, the February, March, April, May and June terms had intervened without orders in said cause, which motion was overruled, appellant duly excepted, and the case proceeded to trial. Verdict, finding appellant guilty. Motions for new trial, and in arrest of judgment; each overruled, and the court rendered judgment on the verdict. To all of which appellant excepted.\nIt is urged by appellant as grounds for reversal that the court erred in refusing to dismiss the proceedings, in permitting the child to remain in the court room during the trial, in rendering judgment on the verdict, and that the judgment is contrary to the law and the evidence.\nThe October, \u00a1November, December, February, March, April, May and June terms, mentioned, were \u201cprobate\u201d terms, and the January and July terms, were \u201claw\u201d terms of the County Court of Washington County. The justice recognized appellant to the January term, 1898, which was the next \u201claw\u201d term, instead of to the preceding October \u201c probate \u201d term, which was in due course the next term of said court.\nIt is contended that the County Court had no jurisdiction at the January or July terms. In People v. Stevens, 19 Ill. App. 405, it is held that the County Court has jurisdiction to try a bastardy case at a law term. The court says: \u201c The conclusion is, that such cases may be tried indifferently either at the law or at the probate terms of the County Court.\u201d\nThe County Court has jurisdiction of that class of cases, of the subject-matter, at all terms. At the January term, 1898, appellant appeared and applied for and obtained a continuance of the case to the July term, 1898, at which term he again appeared and went to trial.\nBy law the County Court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter^ and by appellant\u2019s appearance in court, and the putting in of his defense to the merits of the case, the court had jurisdiction of him as a party to the suit.\nA prosecution under the bastardy act is a civil proceeding, and in such case a defendant may waive any irregularity in process or preliminary proceedings by the same acts and to the same extent as in other civil cases. There is no issue, now, in this case, involving the validity of the recognizance. After the jury was impaneled, appellant moved the court to exclude the child from the presence of the jury. The court overruled the motion and allowed the child to remain, to which appellant excepted.\nThe child was not given in evidence nor exhibited to the jury, nor in any manner referred to by the prosecution in the presence of the jury. It does not appear from the record that it was with its mother when she testified or at any time during the trial nor that the jury had any opportunity or desire to compare it with appellant. All that does appear is, that the court permitted the child to remain in the court room in presence of the. jury. We are of the opinion this was not such error as calls for a reversal of the case.\nThe evidence, in our judgment, abundantly supports the verdict, and judgment on the verdict is fully warranted both in law and in fact. Some objections to the form of the judgment are suggested in argument, but if we assume that such objections can properly be urged under the general assignment \u201cthat the judgment is contrary to the law and to the evidence,\u201d still we regard them of not sufficient gravity to warrant a reversal.\nThe judgment of the County Court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Creighton"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Atterbury & Farthing and J. P. Carter, attorneys for appellant.",
      "F. M\u201e Vernor,\"attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. Walter Rose v. The People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Bertie Stansell.\n1. Bastardy\u2014Prosecution for, a Civil Proceeding.\u2014A prosecution under the bastardy act is a civil proceeding, and the defendant may waive any irregularity in process or preliminary proceedings, by the same acts and to the same extent as in other civil cases.\n2. Same\u2014Prosecution for, May be Tried at any Term of the County Court.\u2014A prosecution for bastardy may be tried, either at the law or at the probate terms of the County Court.\n3. Practice\u2014Motion to Exclude the Child, etc.\u2014It is not error to refuse a motion to exclude the child from the presence of the jury.\nBastardy Proceedings.\u2014Trial in tlie County Court of Washington County; the Hon. George Vernor. Judge, presiding. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff; appeal by defendant.\nHeard in this court at the August term, 1898.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 10, 1899.\nAtterbury & Farthing and J. P. Carter, attorneys for appellant.\nF. M\u201e Vernor,\"attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0128-01",
  "first_page_order": 134,
  "last_page_order": 137
}