delivered the opinion of the court.
People v. Travis, 202 Ill. App. 226 (1916)
Dec. 18, 1916
·
Illinois Appellate Court
·
Gen. No. 22,083
202 Ill. App. 226
The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Clyde Travis, Plaintiff in Error.
Gen. No. 22,083.
(Not to he reported in full.)
Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph H. Hopkins, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1916.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed December 18, 1916.
Statement of the Case.
Proceeding by information by the People of the State of Illinois against Clyde Travis, defendant, charging him with knowingly causing, aiding and encouraging the delinquency of a female child under the age of eighteen years. To review a conviction, the defendant prosecutes a writ of error.
Beauregard F. Moseley, for plaintiff in error.
*227Maclay Hoyne, for defendant in error; Edward E. Wilson, of counsel.
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Infants, § 5a * —token indictment sufficiently charges defendant with causing delinquency of child. In a proceeding by information charging the defendant with causing the delinquency of a female child under the age of eighteen years, held that, lacking a motion to quash before the conclusion of the State case, the information was sufficiently certain in its language to charge the offense.
2. Infants, § 5a*—when evidence justifies conviction on charge of causing delinquency of child. A conviction under an information charging the defendant with causing the delinquency of a female child under the age of eighteen years in the City of Chicago, held justified where the evidence showed that the defendant met the girl out of the State, that she came to Chicago at the instigation of the defendant, that he paid her expenses and had sexual intercourse with her in Chicago.
3. Witnesses, § 296*—what does not discredit testimony. In a proceeding by information charging the defendant with causing the delinquency of a female child under the age of eighteen years, held that the contention of the defendant’s counsel that the delinquent girl, being admittedly unchaste, was not worthy of belief, and that therefore her evidence was discredited and should have no weight, was untenable.