Gorman v. People
| Citation | 17 Colo. 596, 31 P. 335 |
| Case Date | October 17, 1892 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
31 P. 335
17 Colo. 596
GORMAN et al.
v.
PEOPLE.
Supreme Court of Colorado
October 17, 1892
Error to criminal court of Arapahoe county.
James J. Gorman and others were convicted of riot, and bring error on the ground that sentence was pronounced after the court was abolished by statute. Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
1. When there is an office duly created, public policy frequently requires that the official acts of the person actually filling such office and discharging the duties thereof shall not be questioned on the ground that the incumbent has no title to the office. This rule presupposes the existence of an office de jure. There is no principle of law under which a de facto court can be sustained.
2. A sentence imposed after the court pronouncing the same has been abolished by an act of the legislature cannot be allowed to stand.
3. An instruction telling the jury, 'if they believe,' omitting the words 'from the evidence,' is objectionable. It is not necessary in every instruction to repeat the words 'if the jury believe from the evidence,' etc., but the charge in this respect ought to be so clear that intelligent men will have this principle of law clearly before them when deliberating upon a verdict, particularly in criminal cases.
H. E. Luthe, for plaintiffs in error.
Joseph H. Maupin, Atty. Gen., S.W. Jones, and H. Riddell, for the People.
HAYT, C.J.
Plaintiffs in error, James J. Gorman et al., were convicted in the court below of riot, and sentenced to confinement in the county jail of Arapahoe county for the period of 60 days. By an act approved April 19, 1889, the court in which the trial of defendants took place was abolished. This act contained no emergency clause, and, under our constitution, went into effect 90 days after its passage, to wit, on the 18th day of the succeeding month of July. These defendants were sentenced on the next day, July 19th. [17 Colo. 597] The pretended judgment in this case cannot be allowed to stand. Where there is an office duly created, public policy frequently requires that the official acts of the person actually filling such office and discharging the duties thereof shall [31 P. 336.] not be questioned on the ground that the incumbent has no title to the office. Were it not for this salutary rule of law, the administration of public affairs might be thrown into the direct confusion, and the functions of government suspended pending inquiry into the right to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson ex rel. Poe v. Gladden
...v. DiStasio, 297 Mass. 347, 8 N.E.2d 923, 113 A.L.R. 1133; Sykes v. Sanford, 5 Cir., 150 F.2d 205 (habeas corpus); Gorman v. People, 17 Colo. 596, 31 P. 335; State ex rel. Jugler v. Grover, 102 Utah 459, 132 P.2d 125; In re Ah Lee, D.C., 5 F. 899; State v. Whitney, 7 Or. 386; Annotation 144......
-
People ex rel. Attorney General v. Curtice
...v. United States, 159 U.S. 596, 16 S.Ct. 111, 40 L.Ed. 271. And it has been followed with approval by this court in Gorman v. People, 17 Colo. 596, 31 P. 335, 31 Am.St.Rep. 350. Chief Justice Hayt, after adverting to the general rule that public policy frequently prohibits the questioning o......
-
Boykin v. People
...and upon the evidence alone. The mere omission in one instruction of this language is not sufficient to work a reversal. Gorman v. People, 17 Colo. 596, 31 P. 335; Ingols v. Plimpton, 10 Colo. 535, 16 P. 155; Salomon v. Webster, 4 Colo. 353. 6. The sixth instruction to the jury was as follo......
-
Zipperian v. People
...the evidence. In case of another trial the district court should bear in mind what was said by Chief Justice Hayt in Gorman v. People, 17 Colo. 596, 31 P. 335, 31 Am.St.Rep. 350. After adverting to the necessity of advising the jury that their findings must be based on the evidence, he obse......
-
Anderson ex rel. Poe v. Gladden
...v. DiStasio, 297 Mass. 347, 8 N.E.2d 923, 113 A.L.R. 1133; Sykes v. Sanford, 5 Cir., 150 F.2d 205 (habeas corpus); Gorman v. People, 17 Colo. 596, 31 P. 335; State ex rel. Jugler v. Grover, 102 Utah 459, 132 P.2d 125; In re Ah Lee, D.C., 5 F. 899; State v. Whitney, 7 Or. 386; Annotation 144......
-
People ex rel. Attorney General v. Curtice
...v. United States, 159 U.S. 596, 16 S.Ct. 111, 40 L.Ed. 271. And it has been followed with approval by this court in Gorman v. People, 17 Colo. 596, 31 P. 335, 31 Am.St.Rep. 350. Chief Justice Hayt, after adverting to the general rule that public policy frequently prohibits the questioning o......
-
Boykin v. People
...and upon the evidence alone. The mere omission in one instruction of this language is not sufficient to work a reversal. Gorman v. People, 17 Colo. 596, 31 P. 335; Ingols v. Plimpton, 10 Colo. 535, 16 P. 155; Salomon v. Webster, 4 Colo. 353. 6. The sixth instruction to the jury was as follo......
-
Zipperian v. People
...the evidence. In case of another trial the district court should bear in mind what was said by Chief Justice Hayt in Gorman v. People, 17 Colo. 596, 31 P. 335, 31 Am.St.Rep. 350. After adverting to the necessity of advising the jury that their findings must be based on the evidence, he obse......