Matushefske v. Herlihy
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Delaware |
| Writing for the Court | CAREY |
| Citation | 59 Del. 117,214 A.2d 883,9 Storey 117 |
| Decision Date | 15 November 1965 |
| Parties | , 59 Del. 117 John MATUSHEFSKE, Justice of the Peace in New Castle County, Respondent-Appellant, v. Thomas HERLIHY, III, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Petitioner-Appellee. |
Page 883
Respondent-Appellant,
v.
Thomas HERLIHY, III, Chief Deputy Attorney General,
Petitioner-Appellee.
Page 884
[59 Del. 118] William D. Bailey, Jr., of Bayard, Brill, Russell & Handelman, Wilmington, for appellant.
David F. Anderson, of Berl, Potter & Anderson, and Peter W. Green, Wilmington, for appellee.
WOLCOTT, C. J., and CAREY, J., and MARVEL, Vice-Chancellor, sitting.
CAREY, Justice.
The Superior Court granted writs of prohibition against appellant herein, a Justice of the Peace, and the Court of Common Pleas of New Castle County, barring them from taking any further proceedings in certain criminal charges against the appellee, who was at [59 Del. 119] the time Chief Deputy Attorney General, although he resigned that office prior to the decision below. A stipulation of facts was filed on the basis of which the Court held that 'nothing done by the appellee could be construed to amount to the commission of a crime'. In addition to the usual command of the writ, Mr. Matushefske was personally barred from taking any further action whatsoever in any Court of the State based upon the events described in the statement of facts. He alone has appealed.
The facts are these: In obedience to a subpoena, appellant turned over to the Grand Jury certain of his official dockets. The Grand Jury thereafter returned a true bill charging him with four counts of nonfeasance in office, two of which were for failure to keep records of certain motor vehicle offenses brought before him. Four days later, a warrant of arrest was issued based upon the indictment. Police officers first delivered back to appellant his dockets, following which they arrested him pursuant to the warrant and started to seize the dockets as an incident to the arrest. He ordered them to desist, whereupon they telephoned the appellee who instructed them to proceed with the seizure, and they did so. The dockets seized by the police were not his 'live' or current books actually in daily use, but were those for the two years preceding the period included in the current books.
Some days later, the appellant issued a warrant, based upon his own complaint, directing the arrest of appellee on a charge of contempt. Mr. Herlihy was arrested and taken before appellant for a hearing. The matter was continued, however, and appellee promptly filed a petition for prohibition in Superior Court (No. 3120).
Several months later (one day before Mr. Herlihy's resignation became effective), appellant swore out two complaints in the Court of Common Pleas charging appellee with misfeasance and nonfeasance in office. These charges were based upon the same occurrences described above. The warrants were never served, because Mr. Herlihy, having learned of their issuance, promptly filed another petition for prohibition in Superior Court (No. 3000). The two petitions were briefed and argued together in the Superior Court.
[59 Del. 120] Motion was made in this Court to dismiss the appeal in No. 3000 because the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas had not joined in the appeal. We think the motion must be denied. Since appellant was a party defendant in that action and since the order below expressly prohibits him personally from taking any further action in any Court, we consider that he has sufficient standing to prosecute this appeal.
This Court has repeatedly indicated the purposes and functions of a writ of prohibition.
Page 885
They are summarized in Canaday v. Superior Court, 10 Terry 332, 116 A.2d 678, as follows:'The writ of prohibition is a writ issued by a superior to an inferior court to prevent such court from exercising jurisdiction over matters not legally within its cognizance, or to prevent it from exceeding its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New Hampshire Milk Dealers' Ass'n v. New Hampshire Milk Control Bd.
...in a case sufficient interest or bias to disqualify such a member depends upon its particular circumstances. Matushefske v. Herlihy, 214 A.2d 883, 886 It is a well-established legal principle that a distinction must be made between a preconceived point of view about certain principles of la......
-
Family Court v. Department of Labor and Industrial Relations
...v. White, 7 Boyce 25, 48, 102 A. 186, 195--196 (Ct. in Banc 1917); 1 Woolley, Delaware Practice, § 17 (1906); Matushefske v. Herlihy, 9 Storey 117, 214 A.2d 883 (Sup.Ct.1965). For historical development, see also Rash v. Allen, 1 Boyce 444, 76 A. 370 (Ct. in Banc 1910); Carpentertown Coal &......
-
Steigler v. Superior Court In and For New Castle County
...fundamental constitutional rights, provided that there is no other adequate legal remedy. Compare Matushefske v. Herlihy, Del., 214 A.2d 883, 886 In the instant case, as indicated above, we have held that there is no right of appeal to this Court from an order denying bail. There is, theref......
-
McClelland v. General Motors Corp.
...procedural in nature. Appellant suggests nothing to show that he will suffer any actual harm or disadvantage by the requirement, even if [59 Del. 117] it be improper. He does point out the possibility that a witness who previously testified may not be again available, but we think the exist......
-
New Hampshire Milk Dealers' Ass'n v. New Hampshire Milk Control Bd.
...in a case sufficient interest or bias to disqualify such a member depends upon its particular circumstances. Matushefske v. Herlihy, 214 A.2d 883, 886 It is a well-established legal principle that a distinction must be made between a preconceived point of view about certain principles of la......
-
Family Court v. Department of Labor and Industrial Relations
...v. White, 7 Boyce 25, 48, 102 A. 186, 195--196 (Ct. in Banc 1917); 1 Woolley, Delaware Practice, § 17 (1906); Matushefske v. Herlihy, 9 Storey 117, 214 A.2d 883 (Sup.Ct.1965). For historical development, see also Rash v. Allen, 1 Boyce 444, 76 A. 370 (Ct. in Banc 1910); Carpentertown Coal &......
-
Steigler v. Superior Court In and For New Castle County
...fundamental constitutional rights, provided that there is no other adequate legal remedy. Compare Matushefske v. Herlihy, Del., 214 A.2d 883, 886 In the instant case, as indicated above, we have held that there is no right of appeal to this Court from an order denying bail. There is, theref......
-
McClelland v. General Motors Corp.
...procedural in nature. Appellant suggests nothing to show that he will suffer any actual harm or disadvantage by the requirement, even if [59 Del. 117] it be improper. He does point out the possibility that a witness who previously testified may not be again available, but we think the exist......