In re Hamilton

• Decision Date: 22 June 1883
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: In re HAMILTON.

16 N.W. 327

51 Mich. 174

In re HAMILTON.

Supreme Court of Michigan

June 22, 1883

Where a warrant in a criminal case shows a conviction without jurisdiction, habeas corpus would be the proper remedy; but when the defects are mere irregularities, the party must seek redress in some of the modes provided by statute for review by some appellate tribunal.

An appellate court may make use of the writ as one means of exercising its supervisory power; but it is not to be employed as a writ of error by tribunals not possessing the appellate authority.

Certiorari to circuit judge.

J.J Van Riper and W.F. Riggs, for plaintiff.

Geo. H Cagwin, for defendant.

COOLEY, J.

Hamilton was convicted by a justice of the peace of the county of Schoolcraft, for that "on the thirtieth day of December A.D.1882, at Seney, in the township of Manistique, in said county of Schoolcraft, said Philip S. Hamilton did engage in and carry on the business of selling and offering for sale by retail, spirituous and intoxicating liquors, and did sell at retail, spirituous and intoxicating liquors, without first having paid the tax upon the business of selling or offering for sale spirituous or intoxicating liquors by retail, in violation of act No. 268 of the Session Laws of 1879, approved May 31, 1879, and the act No. 156, amendatory thereof, approved May 19, 1881, of the Laws of Michigan." On this conviction he was sentenced to the house of correction at Ionia for the period of 90 days, and was duly committed by the warrant of the justice. He thereupon obtained from the judge of the circuit court for the county of Ionia a writ of habeas corpus, and on a hearing upon return to that writ he was discharged.

The discharge necessarily assumed that the record of conviction failed to show the commission of any offense. This conclusion was reached apparently upon a somewhat critical and technical examination of the commitment, and we are not satisfied that the criticism was not overnice. But the point is not very material, as it is plain that technical defects are not reversible on this process. If the warrant showed a conviction without jurisdiction, habeas corpus would be the proper remedy; but when the defects are mere irregularities the party must seek redress in some of the modes provided by statute for review by some appellate tribunal. The circuit judge of the Ionia circuit is not an appellate tribunal in respect to...