Case Name: The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Robert Wallace, Plaintiff in Error
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1914-02-17
Citations: 185 Ill. App. 213
Docket Number: Gen. No. 19,500
Parties: The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Robert Wallace, Plaintiff in Error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 185
Pages: 213–214

Head Matter:
The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Robert Wallace, Plaintiff in Error.
Gen. No. 19,500.
(Wot to he reported in full.)
Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William N. Gemmill, Judge, presiding.
Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1913.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed February 17, 1914.
Rehearing denied March 3, 1914.
Statement of the Case.
Proceeding by the People of the State of Illinois on information against Robert Wallace, charging defendant with contributing to the delinquency of a minor female child of the age of sixteen years. From a judgment of conviction, defendant brings error assigning as error the overruling of defendant’s motion to quash the information and in arrest of judgment.
John L. Hopkins, for plaintiff in error.
Maclay Hoyne, for defendant in error; Francis E. Hinckley, of counsel.
See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the court.
Abstract of the Decision.
Infants, § 24a —sufficiency of information charging contributing to delinquency of child. Where an information charged that defendant "did unlawfully, wilfully and knowingly encourage, aid, cause, abet and connive at the delinquency of a minor female child under the age of eighteen years, to wit, sixteen years, and did then and there knowingly and wilfully do acts that directly produced, promoted and contributed to conditions which rendered said a delinquent child, in that the said did then and there take the said to a room in the hotel in the City of Chicago, contrary to the form of the statute," etc., it was held that the information was sufficient under Criminal Code, div. XI, sec. 6, & A. If 4105, since the portion of the information ending with the words "sixteen years" charged a crime in the language of the statute, and the remaining portion should be regarded as surplusage, and hence "the nature of the offense" could "be easily understood."