{
  "id": 2603291,
  "name": "Charles J. Durham v. The People of the State of Illinois",
  "name_abbreviation": "Durham v. People",
  "decision_date": "1868-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "233",
  "last_page": "234",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "49 Ill. 233"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 117,
    "char_count": 1526,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.522,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.7809028481508093e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7134846471744105
    },
    "sha256": "787b262f24b9f3007d00ee8d4d0ea1f4808504a8906b01268990a378a4edaeca",
    "simhash": "1:a2966a6e66bec608",
    "word_count": 265
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:09:54.123593+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Charles J. Durham v. The People of the State of Illinois."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Lawrence\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis was a prosecution for bastardy, and the only question now made by the appellant is upon the sufficiency of the testimony. He insists it does not sufficiently appear that the complaining witness was an unmarried woman. The evidence, however, was such as to justify the jury in finding that fact. She spoke of herself as an unmarried woman at the time of the trial, and of the defendant as having \u201c kept company\u201d with her for a year and a half\u2019 by which phrase the jury would properly understand the witness as meaning, that the defendant had been paying his addresses to her vwith a view to marriage, thus implying she was an unmarried woman.\nThere is no reason for setting aside the verdict.\nJudgment affirmed*",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Lawrence"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. Mason B. Loomis, for the appellant.",
      "Mr. William T. Ament, State\u2019s Attorney, and Mr. William H. Richardson, for the people."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Charles J. Durham v. The People of the State of Illinois.\nBastardy\u2014of proof that the complaining witness was unmarried. In a prosecution for bastardy, the complaining witness spoke of herself as an unmarried woman at the time of the trial, and of the defendant as having \u201ckept company\u201d with her for a year and a half: Held, that the jury might properly understand this as meaning that the defendant had been paying his addresses to her with a view to marriage, thus implying she was an unmarried woman.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Kankakee county; the Hon. Charles H. Wood, Judge, presiding.\nThe opinion states the case.\nMr. Mason B. Loomis, for the appellant.\nMr. William T. Ament, State\u2019s Attorney, and Mr. William H. Richardson, for the people."
  },
  "file_name": "0233-01",
  "first_page_order": 233,
  "last_page_order": 234
}