Case ID: ill_322/html/0189-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Farmer", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(No. 17272.
    Writ dismissed.)
    The People ex rel. Eva Meyers, Defendant in Error, vs. John Glees, Plaintiff in Error.
    
      Opinion filed June 16, 1926.
    
    Appeals and errors — Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to review proceeding under Bastardy act. The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a writ of error to the Appellate Court to review a prosecution under the Bastardy act, as it is not a criminal proceeding but a civil action.
    Writ of Error to the Third Division of the Appellate Court for the First District; — heard in that court on appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William L. Morgan, Judge, presiding..
    Harold L. Feigenholtz, for plaintiff in error.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General, Robert E. Crowe, State’s Attorney, and Merrill F. Wehmhoff, (Edward E. Wilson, of counsel,) for defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice Farmer

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a proceeding under the Bastardy act. Upon complaint of the mother of the child plaintiff in error was arrested under a warrant issued by the municipal court of Chicago under the authority of the Bastardy act. At the trial he was convicted and ordered to pay to the clerk of the court a sum of money in installments covering a period of nine years for the support and maintenance of the child. The judgment required plaintiff in error to give bond to secure the payment of the money, and if he failed to give bond that he be confined in jail until he complied with the order or until otherwise discharged by due course of law. The defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, where the judgment was affirmed, and he has sued out this writ of error to review the judgment.

We have no jurisdiction to entertain the writ. A prosecution under the Bastardy act is not a criminal proceeding but is a civil action. Mann v. People, 35 Ill. 467; Pease v. Hubbard, 37 id. 257; Peak v. People, 71 id. 278; Hauskins v. People, 82 id. 193.

The writ of error is dismissed.

Writ dismissed.