Legal Opinion
People v. Pizzi
Appellate Court of Illinois
Decided May 23, 1912No. Gen. No. 16,837PublishedCited by 2 opinions
Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Edwin K. Walker, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1910.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice McSurely
Batisti Pizzi, plaintiff, in error, was found guilty upon' an amended information signed and sworn to by one Ethel Archbold, charging him with the offense of pandering. He was sentenced on the verdict.
It is argued by counsel for plaintiff in error that the amended information is insufficient in that it does not allege Ethel Archbold to be a “female' person.” The language of the statute defining pandering is:
“Any person who shall procure a female inmate for a house of prostitution * * * shall be guilty of pandering.” The language of the amended information is: “Ethel Archbold, * * * in her own…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Lowe's of Raleigh, Inc. v. WorldsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1969
- People v. De MasAppellate Court of Illinois · 1912