People ex rel. Barrett v. Anders

Appellate Court of Illinois

People ex rel. Barrett v. Anders

173 Ill. App. 561, 1912 Ill. App. LEXIS 456

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedOctober 7, 1912

DocketGen. No. 17,713

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 173 Ill. App. 561 (People ex rel. Barrett v. Anders) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People ex rel. Barrett v. Anders, 173 Ill. App. 561, 1912 Ill. App. LEXIS 456 (Ill. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Smith

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was found guilty in a prosecution under the statute upon a complaint for bastardy.

The errors complained of are that the Municipal Court of Chicago had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter ; that after the trial began a supplemental complaint was filed alleging the birth of the child, which submitted another issue to the jury, on which the defendant did not plead, and that the defendant was erroneously ordered to pay the costs. We think that the Municipal Court had jurisdiction under the Municipal Court Act; also that even if the proceeding was irregular as to the supplemental complaint, the defendant, proceeding in the trial without objection, waived same. The costs followed the conviction under the statute.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Presiding Justice Smith

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was found guilty in a prosecution under the statute upon a complaint for bastardy.

The errors complained of are that the Municipal Court of Chicago had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter ; that after the trial began a supplemental complaint was filed alleging the birth of the child, which submitted another issue to the jury, on which the defendant did not plead, and that the defendant was erroneously ordered to pay the costs. We think that the Municipal Court had jurisdiction under the Municipal Court Act; also that even if the proceeding was irregular as to the supplemental complaint, the defendant, proceeding in the trial without objection, waived same. The costs followed the conviction under the statute.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 Ill. App. 561, 1912 Ill. App. LEXIS 456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-barrett-v-anders-illappct-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack