Hallway v. Byers
| Decision Date | 03 April 1928 |
| Docket Number | 38677 |
| Citation | 218 N.W. 905,205 Iowa 936 |
| Parties | JOHN E. HALLWAY, Appellee, v. W. W. BYERS, Justice of the Peace, et al., Appellants |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Polk District Court.--HERMAN F. ZEUCH, Judge.
Habeas corpus proceeding in the district court of Iowa in and for Polk County, commenced by the plaintiff, John E. Hallway against W. W. Byers, justice of the peace of Bloomfield Township, Park A. Findley, sheriff, and Scott Wise, jailer of Polk County, to test the legality of the restraint of the petitioner by the said defendants. The opinion states the salient facts. Judgment was entered sustaining the writ of habeas corpus, and taxing the costs of the action to the defendant justice of the peace, W. W. Byers. Defendants appeal.
Reversed.
Carl S Missildine, County Attorney, and Alexander M. Miller, Assistant County Attorney, for appellants.
John L. Sloane, H. H. Craney, and J. Stuart Bauch, for appellee.
DE GRAFF, J.
The imprisonment of the plaintiff finds its basis in a mittimus issued by the defendant justice of the peace, directed to the defendant Wise, jailer of Polk County, commanding him to receive Hallway "into custody and detain him in the jail of the county until he be legally discharged by due course of law."
The competent record facts disclose that an information was filed before W. W. Byers, justice of the peace in and for Bloomfield Township, Polk County, Iowa, accusing Hallway of the crime of uttering and drawing a false check, as defined by Section 13047, Code of 1924. Hallway was arrested, tried before said justice, found guilty, and sentenced to pay a fine of $ 50 and costs, and, on default of payment of said fine, to be committed to the county jail for 15 days. Hallway, as defendant in said criminal prosecution, gave notice of appeal to the district court. The appeal bond was fixed at $ 500. Upon the default of the defendant to furnish said bond, he was, on May 20, 1927, committed to jail. On June 2, 1927, Hallway filed his verified petition with the clerk of the district court at Des Moines, Iowa, praying that a writ of habeas corpus issue.
Illegal restraint, as alleged in said petition, is, in substance, that the testimony and documentary evidence produced in open court on behalf of the State at the trial before the justice of the peace conclusively showed that the check which petitioner was charged with issuing falsely was, on its face, a postdated check, given not for value received, and further, that the said petitioner has not been adjudged guilty of any crime for which he should be detained.
At the outset, we inquire: First, does the act charged in the information filed against Hallway constitute a public offense? Second, did the justice of the peace have jurisdiction to try and punish the offense charged in said information? If both of these questions are answered in the affirmative, there must be a reversal of the judgment entered. No constitutional question is involved.
There can be no question that the filed information in the instant case did charge a public offense, which, under the statute, constituted a non-indictable misdemeanor. The defendant was charged with uttering and drawing a false check in the sum of $ 19.90 on the Bankers Trust Company of Des Moines, Iowa, payable to the order of C. B. Castle, in payment of house rent. "Said check, being run through the bank in the usual manner, was returned, marked 'no account.'" The information was not attacked in any manner. The defendant, upon a plea of not guilty, was tried, and found guilty. The statute (then in force) provides that any person who shall make, utter, or give any check or written order upon any bank, and who secures credit or thing of value therefor, and who knowingly shall not have an arrangement, understanding, or funds with such bank sufficient to meet or pay the same, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $ 100, or by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed 30 days. Section 13047, Code of 1924.
The appellee contends that it was the province and function of the district court to review the evidence, to determine its sufficiency to sustain the sentence and judgment entered. This proposition finds no support in the statute, or under the well settled rule of judicial decision. The district court, upon the trial of this cause, ruled that the right to review the evidence upon which the justice based his decision was present, and in conformity thereto, received in evidence the testimony and certain documentary evidence introduced upon the trial of Hallway before the justice. The trial court predicated its ruling upon Section 12502, Code of 1924, which reads as follows:
"The reply [in habeas corpus] may deny the sufficiency of the testimony to justify the action of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial