In re Ryan
| Decision Date | 20 October 1891 |
| Citation | 80 Wis. 414,50 N.W. 187 |
| Parties | IN RE RYAN. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Petition for writ of prohibition. Denied.
Rublee A. Cole, for petitioner.
In May, 1891, an information was duly filed in the municipal court of the city and county of Ashland, charging the petitioner, Charles Ryan, with the crime of burglary, and he was thereupon arrested and held to answer such charge. He interposed an affidavit of the prejudice of the judge of such court, and the place of trial of the accused, on such information, was changed to the circuit court of Ashland county. The trial of the petitioner has been postponed to the next December term of the circuit court. He now applies for a writ prohibiting Hon. JOHN K. PARISH from presiding at his trial, and prohibiting such circuit court from trying him. The grounds assigned for issuing the writ prayed for are that the place of trial should not have been changed to the circuit court of Ashland county, but should have been changed to the circuit court of some other county or circuit; and that chapter 488, Laws 1887, which attempts to create the fifteenth judicial circuit, is not a valid law; and hence that Judge PARISH, who was elected under that statute, is not the judge of the circuit court of Ashland county, or any other county. In McDonald v. State, 50 N. W. Rep. 185, (decided herewith,) we hold that chapter 488, Laws 1887, is a valid law, and hence that the fifteenth judicial circuit was lawfully created, that Ashland county is a part of it, and that Judge PARISH is the duly elected and qualified judge of the circuit court in the counties constituting that circuit. As to the change of venue, it is sufficient to say that chapter 94, Laws 1889, creating such municipal court, provides, in section 2 thereof, that, “in case of the change of the place of trial * * * of any criminal case begun by information, * * * said case shall be removed to the circuit court for Ashland county, unless such change is taken on the ground of prejudice of the people of said county,” etc. No valid reason for issuing the writ appearing, the petition must be denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cumberland Club
...same way. Sweitzer v. Territory of Oklahoma, 5 Okl. 299, 300, 47 P. 1094; McDonald v. State, 80 Wis. 411, 412, 50 N.W. 185; In re Ryan, 80 Wis. 414, 50 N.W. 187; Railroad Co. v. Gill, 54 Ark. 105, 106, 15 S.W. 11 L. R. A. 452. To the same effect: United States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1, 12 S.Ct......
-
State ex rel. Todd v. Essling
...deliberations.' (Italics supplied.) The court in support of its position cited McDonald v. State, 80 Wis. 407, 50 N.W. 185; In re Ryan, 80 Wis. 414, 50 N.W. 187; State v. Brown, 33 S.C. 151, 11 S.E. 641; and Railway Co. v. Gill, 54 Ark. 101, 15 S.W. 18, 11 L.R.A. In Keenan v. Price, 68 Idah......
-
Baltimore Fidelity Warehouse Co. v. Canton Lumber Co.
...and final passage; the presumption is conclusive that they have done so." McDonald v. State, 80 Wis. 407, 50 N.W. 185; In re Ryan, 80 Wis. 414, 50 N.W. 187; St. Louis & S. F. R. R. Co. v. Gill, 54 Ark. 101, S.W. 18, 11 L. R. A. 452. In the case of Gill v. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co.......
-
Kelly v. Green Bay, W. & St. P.R. Co.
... ... From the judgment entered thereon accordingly, the plaintiff brings this appeal.John Goodland and Henry D. Ryan, for appellant.Greene & Vroman, for respondent.CASSODAY, J.This being an equitable action tried wholly by the court, the errors assigned, by reason of the alleged admission of incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial evidence, are unavailable, and require no consideration. The court found that each ... ...