Ex parte Emch

• Decision Date: 21 April 1923
• Docket Number: 17823.
• Citation: 214 P. 1043,124 Wash. 401
• Parties: Ex parte EMCH.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

214 P. 1043

124 Wash. 401

Ex parte EMCH.

No. 17823.

Supreme Court of Washington

April 21, 1923

Department 1.

Application by Berna Deane Emch for a writ of habeas corpus. Writ refused.

John W Whitham, of Seattle, for appellant.

Lindsay L. Thompson and M. H. Wight, both of Olympia, for respondent.

MACKINTOSH J.

The petition shows that the applicant was committed to the State School for Girls on September 19, 1921, she at the time being of the age of 17 years, there to remain until she arrived at the age of 21. The answer to the petition discloses that questions of law and fact presented to this court on this application for a writ of habeas corpus had prior thereto been presented to the superior court of King county, in a similar petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and that the petition had there been denied.

While it is true that section 4 of article 4 of the state Constitution gives this court original jurisdiction in habeas corpus, this jurisdiction is not exclusive, for section 6 of the same article gives the superior court the same jurisdiction. In view of this situation, this court is afforded a discretion in regard to the matter, and may, upon occasion, refrain from assuming jurisdiction and require that resort be made to the superior court. We find the Supreme Courts of states where similar constitutional provisions exist confining their assumption of jurisdiction of cases directly involving the interest of the state at large, or to cases of public interest, or to cases where it is necessary to take jurisdiction in order to afford an adequate remedy. 12 R. C. L. p. 1218, states the situation as follows:

'But even where the Constitution gives the highest court of the state original jurisdiction in habeas corpus, it has frequently been held that some special reason must exist for invoking the powers, or the parties will be relegated to a lower court for relief, and accodingly it had been held that appellate courts will not exercise this extraordinary jurisdiction, where there is another effective remedy available.'

See also, Ex parte Lambert (Tex. Cr. App.) 36 S.W. 81.

The inexpediency of determining the controverted facts before the Supreme Court presents another reason for the exercise of this court's discretion in favor of the denial of the application in such cases. The principle which we have just announced is the same as that involved in the recent case of State ex rel....