Case Name: George W. Davis v. The People of the State of Illinois
Court: Illinois Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1869-01
Citations: 50 Ill. 199
Docket Number: 
Parties: George W. Davis v. The People of the State of Illinois.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Reports
Volume: 50
Pages: 199–200

Head Matter:
George W. Davis v. The People of the State of Illinois.
1. Bastardy—of the nature of the proceeding. Although The People are nominally the plaintiffs in such a proceeding, yet it is, to all intents and purposes, a civil proceeding.
2. Verdict—of the form, of—in a proceeding for bastardy. A verdict of “ guilty,” is responsive to the charge in such a proceeding, and is substantially good. A more formal verdict would be, “ guilty of being the father of the child.” But the former comprehends the latter.
Whit of Error to the Circuit Court of Mason county ; the Hon. Charles Turner, Judge, presiding.
This was a prosecution for bastardy under the statute, and the only question presented by the record, is, as to the form of the verdict.
Messrs. Lacey & Wallace, for the plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Roberts & Fullerton, for the people.

Opinion:
Mr. Chief Justice Breese
delivered the opinion of the Court:
This was a proseqution in the Circuit Court of Mason county, against George W. Davis, on a charge of bastardy.
The complaint was made in due form by the mother of the child, and the jury rendered a verdict of guilty, on which the court assessed the yearly support of the child, as under the statute, and rendered judgment therefor.
The only point made, is, as to the sufficiency of the verdict on which to found the judgment.
It has often been held by this court, that the proceeding in question, though nominally The People are plaintiffs, is, to all other intents and purposes, a civil proceeding. Starr v. The People, ante p. 52, and the cases there cited.
The verdict of guilty is responsive to the charge made, and is substantially good. It would have been more formal by adding, "of being father of the child," but that is comprehended in the finding, as that was the charge. Armstrong v. The People, 37 Ill. 459. But the defendant took no exception to the form of the verdict, and as it is mere form, it cannot now be assigned for error.
The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.