
    The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Albert B. Stern, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 22,990.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Adultery, § 5
      
       — what evidence is essential to sustain conviction. Evidence that the accused is a married man is essential to sustain a conviction of adultery.
    2. Adultery, § 5* — what evidence is insufficient to sustain conviction. Proof of a single offense is insufficient to support a charge of adultery.
    3. Adultery, § 3* — what constitutes. In order to constitute the crime of adultery, the parties must dwell together openly and notoriously upon terms as if conjugal relations exist; they must cohabit together and there must be an habitual illicit intercourse between them.
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Edward T. Wade, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1917.
    Reversed.
    Opinion filed July 2, 1917.
    Statement of the Case.
    Prosecution by the People of the State of Illinois, plaintiff, against Albert B. Stern, defendant, for living in an open state of adultery with one Marion May. From a judgment sentencing defendant to the county jail for a term of one year, defendant brings error.
    Charles E. Erbstein, for plaintiff in error.
    Maclay Hoyne, for defendant in error; George C. Bliss, of counsel.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Yols. XI to XV, a**d Cumulative Quarterly, game topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

4. Criminal law — when MU of exceptions is sufficient. A bill of exceptions in a criminal prosecution for adultery, held sufficient as purporting to contain all of the evidence.

5. Criminal law, § 432 — when objections or exceptions are unnecessary to preserve questions for review. Under section 81 of the Practice Act, as amended in 1911 (J. & A. i 8618), it is unnecessary that the record in a criminal case show any objections or exceptions to the finding or entry of judgment or exceptions to a ruling denying a motion to vacate the judgment in order to preserve such questions for review.  