City of Olympia v. Culp

• Decision Date: 29 October 1925
• Docket Number: 19364.
• Citation: 240 P. 360,136 Wash. 374
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: CITY OF OLYMPIA v. CULP.

240 P. 360

136 Wash. 374

CITY OF OLYMPIA v. CULP.

No. 19364.

Supreme Court of Washington

October 29, 1925

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, Thurston County; Wilson, Judge.

Herbert Culp was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.Affirmed.

Harry L. Parr, of Olympia, for appellant.

George R. Bigelow, of Olympia, for respondent.

FULLERTON, J.

On April 25, 1923, a sworn complaint was filed before Walter Crosby, a justice of the peace of Thurston county, by which it was made to appear to the justice that there was probable cause to believe that intoxicating liquor was being manufactured, sold, bartered, exchanged, and kept in violation of the statutes at a certain described place in the city of Olympia, maintained by one John Doe.The justice, on the filing of the complaint, issued a search warrant directed to the sheriff of the county named, commanding him to search the premises described for intoxicating liquors.In executing the warrant, the sheriff took with him certain assistants.Two of these stationed themselves at the back door of the described premises while the sheriff entered at the front door.As the sheriff entered the building, the appellant, Culp, sought to escape therefrom by the back door and was seized by the officers stationed thereat.In the scuffle which followed the officers came into contact with a bottle which the appellant had in his pocket, and which on examination proved to contain intoxicating liquors capable of being used as a beverage.The officers arrested the appellant, and took him before the justice of the peace where a formal complaint was filed against him, charging him with the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors.To this complaint he pleaded not guilty, and was tried and convicted in the justice court.From the judgment of conviction he appealed to the superior court of Thurston county, where he was again tried and convicted.The appeal before us is from the judgment of the superior court.

When the original complaint was filed with the justice of the peace that officer made no entry thereof in his docket.It is contended that this omission is fatal to the proceedings that it is a necessary requirement of the statute that a justice of the peace enter all causes in his docket, and that a failure to comply with the requirement leaves the justice court without jurisdiction over the person of the defendant or the cause for which he is tried.But we are unable to follow the appellant.The statute, it is true (seesection 1770, Rem.Comp. Stat.), requires a justice of the peace to keep a docket in which he shall record the proceedings had before him, but an examination of the related statutes will show that this requirement relates specially to civil causes brought in a justice's court.It is possible that the requirement applies, by necessary intendment equally to criminal causes, but there is no requirement, by intendment or otherwise, that the justice shall record in his docket complaints upon which nothing more than a search warrant is issued.It is sufficient in this respect to record the cause in the docket when crime is discovered by the search and some person is arrested and brought before the justice and formally charged with the commission of the crime.In the present instance, when the defendant was brought before the justice, a formal complaint was filed charging him with the commission of a crime, and the cause duly entered in the docket.The justice also entered therein a record of all of the subsequent proceedings, and we hold this to be a...