delivered the opinion of the court.
People ex rel. Volska v. Murphy, 195 Ill. App. 415 (1915)
Dec. 6, 1915
·
Illinois Appellate Court
·
Gen. No. 21,250
195 Ill. App. 415
The People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Mary Volska, Defendant in Error, v. Vincent Murphy, Plaintiff in Error.
Gen. No. 21,250.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph S. La Buy, Judge, presiding.
Heard in this court at the March term, 1915.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed December 6, 1915.
Statement of the Case.
Prosecution by the People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Mary Volska against Vincent Murphy, defendant, in the Municipal Court of Chicago, in which defendant was charged with bastardy. To reverse a judgment of conviction, defendant prosecutes this writ of error.
*416Abstract of the Decision.
1. Evidence, § 45 * —what constitutes prima facie proof. Prima facie proof or evidence is that which, standing alone, unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient to maintain the proposition affirmed, and if not rebutted will be sufficient for that purpose.
2. Bastards, §22 * —where evidence sufficient to establish prima fade case. In a prosecution for bastardy, where defendant pleaded the statute of limitations (Hurd’s Rev. St., ch. 17, sec. 16, J. & A. ¶ 718), providing that “no prosecution under this Act shall be brought *417after two years from the birth of the bastard child: Provided, the time any person accused shall be absent from the State shall not be computed,” a finding and judgment of conviction held not erroneous, where there was evidence sufficient to prove prima facie that defendant was absent from the State for a period sufficient to prevent the statute from being available in defense, and where defendant offered no evidence to contradict or rebut such prima facie proof.
*416Defendant pleaded the statute of limitations. The evidence showed that the child was born May 20, 1911; that a warrant in the bastardy proceeding was issued October 30,1911, but complainant was unable to serve the warrant and the proceeding was abandoned. The complaint in the present case was filed January 21, 1915. The defendant when in Chicago lived with his mother at 92nd street and Buffalo avenue. The relator testified that defendant remained in Chicago up to about the 22nd of September; that he left about October 30, 1911, and she did not see him nor know where he was until September, 1914. The Secretary of the Court of Domestic Relations testified that she went to the neighborhood of 92nd street and Buffalo avenue two or three times a week from the time the child was born to September, 1914, and did not see defendant at any place in Illinois during that time. The witness was not cross-examined nor did defendant offer any testimony to explain or contradict the testimony given for the prosecution.
John Curtin, for plaintiff in error; Chauncey N. Clements, of counsel.
Maclay Hoyne and Elmer J. Schnackenberg. for defendant in error.