People v. Wolf

Appellate Court of Illinois

People v. Wolf

199 Ill. App. 445

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedMay 12, 1916

DocketGen. No. 21,819

StatusPublished

This text of 199 Ill. App. 445 (People v. Wolf) 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 v. Wolf, 199 Ill. App. 445 (Ill. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Me. Justice Goodwin

delivered the opinion of the court.

5. Vagrancy—when information contains all essential elements of offense. An information charging the defendant with the offense of being a vagabond and that he was “habitually found prowling around steamboat landings, railroad depots, banking institutions, places of amusement,” etc., is not defective in substance as every element necessary to constitute the offense is charged. 6. Criminal law, § 502

*—when sufficiency of information presumed because of failure to call for bill of particulars. Where one charged in an information with the offense of being a vagabond, and with being found habitually prowling around places designated in the statute, considers that the language used does not sufficiently apprise him of the places in which he was found prowling around, he has a right to ask for a bill of particulars, and on his failure to do so, the information must be presumed on error to have been sufficiently definite to enable him to present his defense. 7. Indictment and information—when defects in information waived. Failure of an information, charging the defendant with the offense of being a vagabond, to definitely charge the particular places he was charged with having been habitually found prowling around does not go to the merits of the case on the question of guilt or innocence and is waived by failure to move to quash the information.

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

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

Me. Justice Goodwin

delivered the opinion of the court.

5. Vagrancy—when information contains all essential elements of offense. An information charging the defendant with the offense of being a vagabond and that he was “habitually found prowling around steamboat landings, railroad depots, banking institutions, places of amusement,” etc., is not defective in substance as every element necessary to constitute the offense is charged. 6. Criminal law, § 502

*—when sufficiency of information presumed because of failure to call for bill of particulars. Where one charged in an information with the offense of being a vagabond, and with being found habitually prowling around places designated in the statute, considers that the language used does not sufficiently apprise him of the places in which he was found prowling around, he has a right to ask for a bill of particulars, and on his failure to do so, the information must be presumed on error to have been sufficiently definite to enable him to present his defense. 7. Indictment and information—when defects in information waived. Failure of an information, charging the defendant with the offense of being a vagabond, to definitely charge the particular places he was charged with having been habitually found prowling around does not go to the merits of the case on the question of guilt or innocence and is waived by failure to move to quash the information.

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 Ill. App. 445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wolf-illappct-1916.