Packwood v. State
| Decision Date | 28 June 1893 |
| Citation | 33 P. 674,24 Or. 261 |
| Parties | PACKWOOD et al. v. STATE et al. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Union county; James A. Fee, Judge.
Writ of review prosecuted by William H. Packwood, Jr., and others, to reverse the action of a justice in denying change of venue in a criminal case. From a judgment of the circuit court affirming the action of the justice, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.
J.L. Rand, for appellants.
Chas F. Hyde, Dist.Atty., for respondents.
This is a proceeding, by writ of review, to reverse and annul the action of the justice's court for Cove precinct, Union county, in refusing to grant a change of venue, and proceeding with the trial of a criminal charge against the plaintiffs for trespassing upon inclosed lands in violation of section 1794 of the Criminal Code. The motion was based upon the affidavits of each of the defendants in the criminal proceedings and plaintiffs herein, setting forth, among other things, that James Hendershott, justice of the peace for Cove precinct, had been and was then directly interested in the land upon which defendants were charged with having trespassed, and that he had been for a long time and still was the agent, adviser, and counsel of the private prosecutor regarding the land, and had assisted him in attempting to acquire title thereto, and had very recently been investigating the same at Portland and Salem, and was so prejudiced against the defendants therein that they could not expect to and would not receive a fair and impartial trial in said justice's court. The motion for a change of venue was overruled by the justice's court, and a trial had, resulting in the conviction of the defendants in the criminal proceeding, and a judgment that they each pay a fine of $15 and costs. Upon a hearing in the circuit court the action and proceedings of the justice's court were affirmed, and plaintiffs appeal.
That the affidavits for a change of venue in the justice's court presented sufficient grounds for a change of the place of trial is too clear for argument. It is an ancient maxim and one founded on the most obvious principles of natural right and justice, that every litigant is entitled to a hearing and trial before a fair and impartial court or tribunal. This principle finds expression in our statute by the provisions for a change of venue when the court or judge is so prejudiced against the party making the motion that he cannot expect a fair and impartial trial before such court or judge. Sections 45, 274, and 1222, Hill's Ann.Laws. These provisions of the statute should receive a broad and liberal rather than a technical and strict, construction, and the courts ought not to be too astute in discovering some refined and subtle distinction to avoid their operation; for, as was said by Mr. Justice Graves: "The immediate rights of the litigants are not the only object of the rule, but sound public policy, which is interested in preserving every tribunal appointed by law from discredit, imperiously demands its observation." Stockwell v. Board, 22 Mich. 349. Indeed, the sufficiency of the facts stated in the affidavits is not seriously questioned, but the contention for the respondents is (1) that the affidavits are defective in substance because they do not state that the motion was not made for the purpose of delay; and (2) the statute does not provide for or authorize a change...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Ricco v. Biggs
...grounds were good. Either was sufficient and neither was dictum. Furthermore, the validity of the statute was assumed in Packwood v. State, 24 Or. 261, 263, 33 P. 674, in an opinion written by Mr. Justice Robert S. Suppose the criminal action out of which this proceeding grows were transfer......
-
Oregon State Bar v. Wright
...and justice courts generally handle less serious offenses than circuit courts.9 Of further interest on this point is Packwood v. State, 24 Or. 261, 263-64, 33 P. 674 (1893). In that case the justice court denied a meritorious motion for change of venue in a criminal case and the circuit cou......
-
State v. Savage
...for a change of venue is not made for delay; but that fact may appear therefrom without a positive statement to that effect. Packwood v. State, 24 Or. 261, 33 P. 674. Giving the affidavits in support of the motion such liberal construction, we are confronted with the principle that an appli......
-
State v. Superior Court of Spokane County
... ... and impartial trial. They are in furtherance of justice, and ... should be liberally construed so as not to defeat the right ... 4 Enc. Pl. & Prac. p. 380; Buck v. Eureka, 97 Cal ... 135, 31 P. 845; Packwood v. State, 24 Or. 261, 33 P ... 674. In the last case cited the court says: 'These ... provisions of the statute should receive a broad and liberal, ... rather than a technical and strict, construction, and the ... courts ought not to be too astute in discovering some ... ...