Foreman v. Hunter
Decision Date | 19 October 1882 |
Citation | 13 N.W. 659,59 Iowa 550 |
Parties | FOREMAN v. HUNTER, SHERIFF. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Jasper district court.
The plaintiff filed a petition praying for his discharge upon a writ of habeas corpus from the jail of Jasper county. The writ of habeas corpus was duly issued, and upon the hearing the court refused to discharge the petitioner. The plaintiff appeals.Winslow & Wilson, for appellant.
Smith McPherson, Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The evidence upon which the case was heard is not before us. The petition in substance alleges that the imprisonment and restraint of the plaintiff is by virtue of a mittimus issued by one J. L. Johnson, a justice of the peace in and for Jasper county, upon a judgment of conviction upon seventeen counts in an information charging petitioner with the sale of intoxicating liquors; that the judgments entered upon every count of the information are void, and the imprisonment is illegal, for the following among other reasons: First, two of the jury which tried the cause were not citizens of the United States, which fact was not known to petitioner until after the verdict was rendered; second, the said judgments, and each of them except the one entered upon the fifth count of the information, are wholly void, because the matters and things alleged in said counts do not constitute any violation of any statute of the state; third, that a witness was hired and paid the sum of $25 to testify in said cause against petitioner, which sum was made up by subscription or donation, and that among the said contributors was the said J. L. Johnson, who was the court that tried the case. The petitioner further alleges that the justice fixed the appeal bond at $3,400, which is excessive and oppressive, and in violation of the constitution of the state.
The court, upon the hearing of the cause, found that the allegations in plaintiff's petition are true, except in relation to the information upon which petitioner was tried, respecting which the facts are as follows: Upon these facts the court held, as a matterof law, that the judgments upon the several counts are not void, but that the bail fixed upon appeal is excessive. The court thereupon dismissed the writ of habeas corpus, and reduced the bail upon appeal to $200.
1. It is insisted that the judgments are void because two of the jurors trying the cause were aliens. It may be conceded that it is the duty of the state, as claimed by appellant, to put legal jurors in the box to try a cause. A judgment rendered by a disqualified jury is erroneous, but not void. It might be reversed upon appeal, but it cannot be...
To continue reading
Request your trial