In re Barbee

• Citation: 19 Wash. 306,53 P. 155
• Parties: IN RE BARBEE ET AL.
• Decision Date: 10 May 1898
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

53 P. 155

19 Wash. 306

IN RE BARBEE ET AL.

Supreme Court of Washington

May 10, 1898

Appeal from superior court, Spokane county; L. H. Prather, Judge.

Application by Annie Barbee and another for habeas corpus Writ denied and they appeal. Reversed.

Del Cary Smith and Fenton & O'Brien, for appellants.

John A Pierce, Pros. Atty., for respondents.

ANDERS J.

The appellant R. L. Barbee made complaint in writing, under oath to the municipal court of Spokane, charging appellant Annie Barbee, his daughter, with incorrigibility. A warrant for the arrest of said Annie was issued upon said complaint, and she was brought before the judge of said municipal court for examination, and said court thereupon heard the testimony of witnesses, both in behalf of the state and said appellant, and upon the evidence adduced adjudged the complaint to be sustained, and thereupon entered an order that the said Annie Barbee be committed to the state reform school at Chehalis. A copy of said order was delivered to the sheriff of Spokane county as his warrant for carrying the said Annie to said institution, and he thereupon, in execution of said warrant, took her into custody. Immediately thereafter the appellants filed in the superior court of Spokane county their petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The writ was granted, returnable before the Honorable L. H Prather, one of the judges of said superior court. In obedience to the writ, the said sheriff made his return to the effect that he held the said Annie Barbee by virtue of an order issued by the judge of the municipal court of Spokane committing the said Annie Barbee to the state reform school. The appellants demurred to said return, and the same was overruled by the court. Thereafter the cause came on for hearing before the said superior court upon the petition for the writ, and the court, after hearing the arguments of counsel for and against the petition, rendered judgment denying the writ, and remanding the appellant Annie Barbee to the custody of the sheriff. From this judgment and order this appeal is prosecuted.

Our statute relating to habeas corpus provides that "no court or judge shall inquire into the legality of any judgment or process whereby the party is in custody, or discharge him when the term of commitment has not expired, in either of the cases following: (1) Upon any process issued on any final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction." 2 Hill's Code, § 722. The only question, therefore, to be determined is whether the municipal court had jurisdiction to make the final order committing the said Annie Barbee to the state reform school for, if it had such jurisdiction, the judgment of the trial court must be affirmed. Errors and irregularities in the procedure in the trial court cannot be inquired into by habeas corpus, unless they are such as to affect the power or jurisdiction of the court to act in the case. Such matters can only be corrected by appeal or some other appropriate remedy. 9 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, p. 227, and notes; In re Rafferty, 1 Wash. St. 382, 25 P. 455; In re Lybarger, 2 Wash. St. 131, 25 P. 1075. The act creating municipal courts made them courts of record, and granted them jurisdiction "(1) of any and all offenses under any ordinance of their respective cities. (2) Of all criminal offenses under the laws of the state of Washington, charged to have been committed within their respective cities, less than a felony. (3) The judges of said courts shall have all the powers of a committing magistrate as to all offenses committed within their respective cities,"-and provided that "wherever the jurisdiction hereby conferred may be exercised by other courts, under the constitution and laws of this state, the jurisdiction hereby conferred shall be deemed to be concurrent with such other courts." Laws 1891, p. 108. The effect of the provision last above quoted is to give these courts concurrent jurisdiction with justice courts. And this is further shown by section 4 of the act, which provides for a change of venue from the municipal to the proper justice court. It is claimed by the learned prosecuting attorney for Spokane county, who has filed a brief in answer to that of the appellants, that inasmuch as the act providing for the committing of juvenile offenders to the state reform school (Laws 1891, p. 195) was passed after the act declaring municipal courts to be courts of record went into effect, and confers jurisdiction to commit juvenile offenders to the reform school upon any court of record, it necessarily follows that the municipal court of Spokane was competent to make the order of which appellants here complain. This argument is based on section 1 of the act, which reads as follows: "When a boy or girl of sane mind between the ages of eight and sixteen years shall, in any court of record in this state, be found guilty of any crime except murder or manslaughter, or who for want of proper paternal care is growing up in mendicancy or vagrancy, or is incorrigible, and complaint thereof is made and properly sustained, the court may, if in its opinion the accused is a proper subject therefor,...