In re Morton

• Decision Date: 15 May 1862
• Citation: 10 Mich. 208
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: In re John Morton

10 Mich. 208

In re John Morton

Supreme Court of Michigan

May 15, 1862

Heard May 14, 1862

Habeas corpus.

The petition set forth, that on April 26th, 1862, the following complaint was made, and filed with W. W. Mitchell, a Justice of the Peace of Ionia county:

"State of Michigan, County of Ionia, ss.: Alexander F. Bell, being duly sworn, says, that he is a resident of the township of Ionia, in said county, and that he verily believes that Giles B. Conkey did, at the township of Ionia aforesaid, between the fifteenth day of April, 1862, and the twenty-sixth day of April, 1862, sell intoxicating liquors, in violation of an act entitled 'An act to prevent the manufacture and sale of spirituous or intoxicating liquors as a beverage,' and that he is unable of his own knowledge to state sufficient facts and circumstances to authorize the issuing of a warrant.

"Alexander F. Bell.

"Subscribed and sworn to before me this 26th day of April, 1862.

"W W. Mitchell, Justice of the Peace."

The petition further states, that thereupon the justice issued a subpoena, commanding petitioner to appear and give evidence touching said complaint; that he appeared in obedience thereto, and having been sworn was asked the following question: Whether he knew of Giles Conkey having, at any time between the 13th and 26th days of April inst., himself directly or indirectly sold any spirituous or intoxicating liquors in the village of Ionia? Which question petitioner refused to answer; whereupon the justice proceeded to impose upon him a fine of ten dollars, and issued a warrant for his commitment to the county jail, until the fine should be paid or until the expiration of thirty days.

The imprisonment under this commitment was alleged to be illegal for the reason, among others, that the complaint was not sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the magistrate; and the whole proceeding was, therefore, void.

The sheriff returned the commitment as his authority for the detention.

Prisoner discharged.

C. I Walker and G. V. N. Lothrop for petitioner, to show want of jurisdiction in the justice, offered to read a certified copy of said complaint, which was objected to by counsel for the people, on the ground that it was not competent to go behind the commitment--which was claimed to be fair on its face--to inquire into the correctness of the justice's action. But the court held other-wise, and the evidence was read.

...