Blodgett v. McVey

• Decision Date: 11 July 1906
• Citation: 131 Iowa 552,108 N.W. 239
• Parties: BLODGETT v. MCVEY, JUDGE.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

131 Iowa 552

108 N.W. 239

BLODGETT

v.MCVEY, JUDGE.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

July 11, 1906.

Certiorari to District Court, Polk County.

Action of certiorari to review the action of the defendant. The opinion states the case. Affirmed.D. T. Blodgett and B. H. French, for plaintiff.

Jesse O. Miller and Robert O. Brennan, for defendant.

SHERWIN, J.

In August, 1902, an information charging the plaintiff herein and others with the violation of an ordinance of the city of Des Moines against gambling was filed in the police court of said city. In September, a trial was had on said information in said court which resulted in the conviction of the plaintiff. He appealed from the judgment therein rendered to the district court of Polk county, and the original papers filed in the police court were sent to the district court and duly filed therein. In making a transcript of his docket, the police judge inadvertently entered the case “State of Iowa v. D. T. Blodgett,” and it was so entitled on the criminal record of the district court. The case came on for trial in the district court in March, 1903, and all proceedings were conducted in the name of “City of Des Moines v. D. T. Blodgett.” The instructions of the court were so entitled, and instructed the jury that the defendant in that case was accused of the crime of gambling in violation of an ordinance of the city of Des Moines. The defendant was again found guilty of violating the ordinance in question and was adjudged to pay a fine of $50. Afterwards, the defendant appealed to this court entitling the case “City of Des Moines v. D. T. Blodgett.” The case was docketed here, but no abstract or argument was filed by the defendant herein, and in 1903 the appeal was dismissed because it appeared from the record before us that the appeal was in a case entitled “City of Des Moines v. Blodgett,” while the transcript showed that the judgment was entered in a case entitled “State of Iowa v. Blodgett.” Nothing further was done by the plaintiff herein except to pay a part of the judgment, until in December, 1905, when he filed a motion in the district court, asking that the judgment entered in the case be set aside and be declared null and void for want of jurisdiction in the district court to render same; the specific point being made that no indictment had been returned by the grand jury of the county. The motion was overruled, and the district court directed the clerk thereof to correct the criminal record of said court so that the same would show the correct title of the case, viz., “City of Des Moines v. D. T. Blodgett.” This was accordingly done, and thereafter this writ was granted; the petition therefor alleging error on the part of the trial court in ordering the record corrected, and error in not sustaining the motion because the district court had no jurisdiction to try the case.

We shall not discuss or determine whether the trial court committed error in ordering a correction of the record, for we do not consider such determination necessary to the disposition of the case. It is the settled rule of this state that a writ of certiorari will not be granted, nor the action of an inferior tribunal be annulled, unless it be shown that such action was prejudicial to the plaintiff. Woodworth v. Gibbs, 61 Iowa, 398, 16 N. W. 287;Johnson v. Supervisors, 61 Iowa, 89, 15 N. W. 856. When the jurisdiction of an inferior tribunal is assailed in a proceeding of this kind, it is the duty of this court to determine the question according to the actual fact as made to appear in the record before us, and for such purpose we are not limited to the petition or answer, but may consider other evidence. Stone v. Miller, 60 Iowa, 243, 14 N. W. 781. The prosecution was in fact conducted and the conviction obtained in the name of the City of Des Moines and for the violation of an ordinance of said city. The mistake of the police court in entitling the case as it did in the transcript, and the docketing of the case in the district court in the name of the state of Iowa, did not affect the substantial rights of the defendant. The information charged the violation of a city ordinance, and nothing else. He knew at all stages...