delivered the opinion of the court.
People v. Lester, 207 Ill. App. 111 (1917)
July 2, 1917
·
Illinois Appellate Court
·
Gen. No. 22,717
207 Ill. App. 111
The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Melvin Lester, Plaintiff in Error.
Gen. No. 22,717.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Criminal law, § 502 * — when information presumed to he sufficient. In the absence of a motion, preliminarily made, to quash an information, after judgment, it will be presumed on review that the information was sufficient in law, unless it appears from the information itself that it failed to charge defendant with the commission of a crime.
2. Vagrancy, § 4* — when information is sufficient. An information which charged that defendant heretofore, to wit, on the 18th day of October, A. D. 1915, at the City of Chicago, “was an idle and dissolute person” and “was habitually neglectful of his employment and calling, and did not lawfully provide for himself and for the support of his family”; that he “was an idle and dissolute person *112and neglected all lawful business, and did habitually misspend his time by frequenting houses of ill fame, gaming houses and tippling shops, without giving a good account of himself,” and that he was a “thief,' having no lawful means of support, and is habitually found prowling around crowded thoroughfares and lounging about, and found in houses of ill fame, gambling houses and tippling shops,”' contrary to the statute, etc., held sufficient to charge defendant with vagabondage and to inform him of the nature and quality of the charge, even though defendant is termed a vagrant in the information. ,
*111Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Charles H. Bowles, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1917.
Affirmed.'
Opinion filed July 2, 1917.
Statement of the Case.
Information by the People of the State of Illinois, plaintiff, against Melvin Lester, defendant, on the charge of being a vagabond. To reverse a sentence of imprisonment for six months in the house of correetion, defendant prosecutes this writ of error.
George W. Blackwell, for plaintiff in error.
Maclay Hoyne, for defendant in error; John F. Cashen, Jr., of counsel.