Averell v. Perrott

• Citation: 41 N.W. 929,74 Mich. 296
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 20 February 1889
• Parties: AVERELL v. PERROTT, JUSTICE OF THE PEACE.

41 N.W. 929

74 Mich. 296

AVERELL v. PERROTT, JUSTICE OF THE PEACE.

Supreme Court of Michigan

February 20, 1889

Application for writ of mandamus to compel respondent, a justice of the peace, to proceed with the hearing of a complaint filed before him.

CHAMPLIN J.

Local act No. 435 of the Session Laws of 1887 confers upon the police justice exclusive and original jurisdiction to hear try, and determine all criminal cases wherein the crime misdemeanor, or offense charged shall have been committed within the corporate limits of the city of Bay City, or upon any land, tenements, or hereditaments owned or occupied by or under the authority of the city of Bay City, within the county of Bay, and which crime, misdemeanor, or offense would be now or hereafter cognizable by a justice of the peace if the same had been committed in any other part of this state to entertain, conduct, and dispose of all preliminary examinations into crimes, misdemeanors, or offenses which shall have been committed within the corporate limits of Bay City; to hear, try, and determine, or otherwise lawfully entertain, conduct, and dispose of, all cases and proceedings arising within the corporate limits of the city of Bay City under the laws of this state in relation to disorderly persons, illegitimate children, fugitives from justice from other states and foreign countries, the preservation of the public peace, and the prevention of crime. The respondent is a justice of the peace of Bay City, and a complaint was made before him against a person for violation of the criminal laws of the state not cognizable before a justice of the peace to hear, try, and determine. He issued a warrant, but refused to proceed to examine into the facts to see whether a crime had been committed, with a view to hold him to appear at the circuit court to answer any information that might be filed, on the ground that the act above referred to deprive him of jurisdiction by conferring exclusive jurisdiction upon the police justice; and we are asked to issue a mandamus to compel him to proceed. We think that portion of the act which deprives justices of the peace of jurisdiction as conservators of the peace, as it was held and recognized when the constitution of 1850 took effect, is void and of no effect. Article 6,� 19, declares that justices of the peace and other officers therein named shall be conservators of the peace within their several...