In re Petition of Lewis
| Decision Date | 01 July 1883 |
| Citation | 1 P. 283,31 Kan. 71 |
| Parties | In the matter of the petition of JAMES LEWIS, et al., for a Writ of Habeas Corpus |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Original Proceedings in Habeas Corpus.
PETITION for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of James Lewis and three others, filed in this court, October 16, 1883. The facts appear in the opinion filed at the December, 1883 session of the court.
Petition denied.
G. P Smith, for petitioners.
G. A. Amos, county attorney, for respondent.
OPINION
This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, presented to this court by James Lewis, Mattie Lewis, Minnie Brooks, and Love Kenton. They claim that they are illegally restrained of their liberty by David Worst, the sheriff and jailer of Allen county. It appears from the petition and the exhibits thereto that on August 24, 1883, G. A. Amos, county attorney of Allen county, Kansas, filed a complaint before J. Bond, a justice of the peace of that county, charging the defendants with keeping and being inmates of a house of prostitution, and being vagrants. This complaint was sworn to by the county attorney "on information and belief," and was not sworn to in any other manner. A trial was had before the justice, and the defendants in that proceeding, the petitioners in this, were found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment in the county jail of said county. Afterward the justice of the peace issued his warrant for the purpose of enforcing the sentence and judgment against the defendants, the present petitioners; and the said David Worst, as sheriff and jailer of said county, is now confining them in the county jail.
It seems that the only irregularity in the entire proceedings is, that the original complaint was not sworn to upon the knowledge of any person, but was sworn to simply upon the information and belief of the county attorney. Now we do not think that this irregularity is sufficient to invalidate the proceedings of the justice of the peace so that they may be attacked collaterally and held void on an application for a writ of habeas corpus. A justice of the peace, under the statutes, has jurisdiction of the kind of offenses of which the petitioners were charged in this case. (See act relating to Crimes and Punishments, Comp Laws 1879, ch. 31, § 280.) These offenses are misdemeanors, punishable by fine and imprisonment in the county jail. The justice of the peace in the present case also had jurisdiction of the persons of the petitioners; and, we also think, had jurisdiction to hear and determine all matters in controversy between the state of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brown
... ... to do so in no manner affected the jurisdiction of the court, ... as was ruled in habeas corpus in In re Lewis, 31 ... Kan. 71, 1 P. 283. In a word, the failure to verify the ... information as the statute, section 2477, Revised Statutes ... 1899, ... ...
-
United States v. Eldredge
... ... belief is sufficient in such a case: State v ... Hobbs , 39 Me. 212; In re Lewis , 31 Kan. 71; ... 1 P. 283; Matoon v. Eder , 6 Cal. 57; ... Washburn v. People , 10 Mich. 372; ... Mitchell v. Pitts , 61 Ala. 219; U ... ...
-
Ex parte Talley
...P. 289, and in State v. Osborn, 54 Kan. 473, 38 P. 572; and in each of these cases reaffirmed its previous holding. See, also, In re Lewis, 31 Kan. 71, 1 P. 283, and State Stoffel, 48 Kan. 364, 29 P. 685. The same question was before the Supreme Court of Colorado in Brown v. People, 20 Colo......
-
City of Topeka v. Boutwell
...that the defendant stand committed till the judgment be complied with." Paragraph 609, Gen. St. 1889; In re McCort, supra; In re Lewis, 31 Kan. 71, 1 P. 283; Ex Bedell, 20 Mo.App. 125; Berry v. Brislan, 86 Ky. 5, 4 S.W. 794; State v. Peterson, 38 Minn. 143, 36 N.W. 443; Huddleson v. Ruffin,......