delivered the opinion of the court.
People v. Melville, 185 Ill. App. 214 (1914)
Feb. 17, 1914
·
Illinois Appellate Court
·
Gen. No. 19,714
185 Ill. App. 214
The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Ethel Melville, Plaintiff in Error.
Gen. No. 19,714.
(Not to he reported in full.)
Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Edwabd T. Wade, Judge, presiding.
Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1913.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed February 17, 1914.
Statement of the Case.
Proceeding on information by the People of the State of Illinois against Ethel Melville charging defendant with having contributed to the delinquency of a female child in persuading her to visit houses of ill-fame. From a judgment of conviction, defendant brings error.
Thomas J. 0 ’Hare and Frank H. Bowen, for plain! tiff in error.
Maclay Hoyne, for defendant in error; Edward E. Wilson, of counsel.
*215Abstract of the Decision.
1. Criminal law, § 471 * —questions reviewable on record. The record must be taken as it stood on the day of the issuance of the writ of error, and consequently a subsequent order expunging from, the record an order showing arraignment and plea cannot be considered.
2. Criminal law, § 526 * —failure to arraign as harmless error. On trial by consent by the court without a jury, failure to arraign is not reversible error.
3. Criminal law, § 430 * —sufficiency of information, how saved. Where the information charges an offense, though defectively, objection can be raised only by motion to quash.
4. Infants, § 24a * —sufficiency of 'information charging contributing to delinquency. An information charging that defendant at certain place on a named date “did then and there contribute to the delinquency of one * * * a female of previous chaste life under the age of sixteen years by supplying her with clothing and persuading her to visit houses of ill-fame with one * * * and did knowingly do such acts that directly produced the conditions which rendered such child a delinquent child, viol. Sec. 42, H. B. Chap. 38 Revised Statutes, contrary,” etc., is sufficient to state an offense, though defectively, and objection may be saved only by motion to quash.