delivered the opinion of the court.
People v. Young, 182 Ill. App. 3 (1913)
July 7, 1913
·
Illinois Appellate Court
·
Gen. No. 18,054
182 Ill. App. 3
The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Charlie Young, Plaintiff in Error.
Gen. No. 18,054.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph Sabath, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1913.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed July 7, 1913.
Statement of the Case.
Prosecution on information against Charlie Young for pandering. From judgment of sentence to house of correction for six months and to pay a fine of five hundred dollars, defendant brings error.
*4Abstract of the Decision.
1. Prostitution, § 2 * —when information charging pandering sufficient. Information charging offense of pandering in the words of the statute is sufficient.
2. Prostitution, § 2*—when information charging pandering sufficient. Information charging offense of pandering need not set out facts to show that offense was committed.
3. Criminal law, § 366*—insufficiency of information as grounds for motion to arrest judgment. Insufficiency of an information charging pandering cannot be taken advantage of on motion for arrest of judgment.
4. Criminal law, § 476*—when evidence presumed sufficient on review. Evidence presumed sufficient when not preserved in the record.
5. Indictment and information, § 45*-—Bill of particulars. Defendant may ask for bill of particulars when charge of offense in information is general.
Louis Greenberg, for plaintiff in error.
Maclay Hoyne, for defendant in error; Zach Hoeheimer, of counsel.