Case ID: ill-app_200/html/0068-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice McGoorty", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Lewis E. Rice, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 22,135.
    (Not to he reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    Disobdebly house, § 6
      
      —when evidence sufficient to show defendant an inmate of house of assignation. On a prosecution by information, charging defendant with being an inmate of a house of ill fame, evidence examined and held sufficient to support a judgment that defendant was an “inmate” within the meaning of the Criminal Code, ch. 38, sec. 57a-l [Cal. Ill. St. Supp. 1916 ¶ 3591 (1) ].
    
      Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph Z. Uhlir, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1916.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed July 20, 1916.
    Statement of the Case.
    Information by the People of the State of Illinois against Lewis Bice, defendant, charging him with being, on September 22,1915, an inmate of a house of ill fame. Trial by jury having been waived, the cause was submitted to the court, resulting in adjudging defendant guilty and sentencing him to pay a fine of two hundred dollars and the costs of suit, taxed at six dollars. To reverse .this judgment, defendant prosecutes this writ of error.
    It appeared that defendant, on above date and for six years prior thereto, was employed as clerk in the Queen Hotel, being the premises referred to and described in said information. It was contended by defendant, if he was guilty of any offense under the evidence, that he was guilty of being a keeper and not an inmate of a house of ill fame or assignation, etc.
    Maurice J. Slater, for plaintiff in error.
    Maclay Hoyne, for defendant in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice McGoorty

delivered the opinion of the court.