People v. Gobles

• Decision Date: 03 November 1887
• Citation: 67 Mich. 475,35 N.W. 91
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. GOBLES.

35 N.W. 91

67 Mich. 475

PEOPLE v. GOBLES.

Supreme Court of Michigan

November 3, 1887

Error to circuit court, Kalamazoo county; ALFRED J. MILLS, Judge.

O.T. Tuthill, for defendant, appellant.

Moses Taggart, Atty. Gen., and Frank E. Knappen, Pros. Atty., for the People.

CHAMPLIN J.

Complaint was entered against respondent before the recorder of the city of Kalamazoo for furnishing liquor to Nellie Rafter, a minor of the age of four years, said respondent not being a druggist. He was arrested and convicted, and removed the record into the circuit court for the county of Kalamazoo where the judgment was affirmed. The errors assigned in the affidavit for certiorari (being the same which are assigned here) raise three questions of law. (1) The recorder had no authority to hear, try, and determine the case. (2) The recorder had no authority to sentence the respondent to be confined in the state house of correction and reformatory at Ionia. (3) The offense of which respondent was convicted was not such as authorized a sentence to the prison aforesaid.

The respondent claims that the recorder had no jurisdiction to act in the matter because he was elected to fill that place under an act of the legislature constituting and organizing the recorder's court, being Act No. 337, Sess.Laws 1883. The legislature in 1885 substantially re-enacted that portion of Act No. 337 organizing the recorder's court. The material changes consisted in omitting a clause in the former act which declared the recorder's court to be a court of record, and in giving to the recorder exclusive jurisdiction in cases of bastardy arising within the city. It also contained this provision: "All acts heretofore done under and by virtue of chapter 16, Act No. 337 of the local acts of the legislature of the state of Michigan, passed at the regular session of 1883, are hereby declared valid, and nothing in this act contained shall affect the term or title to the office of the recorder heretofore elected by the city of Kalamazoo." The argument of counsel for respondent is that the act of 1883 was unconstitutional, for the reason that it was entitled "An act to incorporate the city of Kalamazoo," and the organization of the recorder's court was not embraced in the title of the act. But this would not render the act unconstitutional. The establishment of municipal courts in the organization of cities is one of the necessary things in the incorporation of a city, and does not infringe the constitutional provision. Hargrave v. Weber, 32 N.W 921; Boyce v. Sebring,

33 N.W. 815; Harris v People, 59 N.Y. 599.

The recorder was elected under the act of 1883, qualified and acted as judge of the recorder's court, and, for aught that appears, he was legally elected, and he is still acting as such recorder. We cannot try his title to the office in this collateral proceeding, and his acts while exercising the functions of his office must be held legal and valid, whether he was properly elected or not. It is not like the case of an officer whose term of office has expired and another elected and qualified to fill his place. Here there is no claim that any other person is the duly elected and qualified recorder of the city of Kalamazoo. The errors assigned based upon this objection are overruled.

The second and third objections may be considered together. The statute confers upon the recorder's court the same criminal jurisdiction as that conferred upon justices of the peace of the several townships of this state. The contention of counsel for respondent is that, as justices of the peace have jurisdiction only over such offenses as are committed within their counties, therefore they cannot sentence a person to be imprisoned outside of the county, and, as the jurisdiction of the recorder is limited to the limits of the city, he can only sentence to the county jail. Justices of the peace have such jurisdiction and power as the legislature confers upon them within the limits of the constitution, and section 9755, How.St. provides: "From and after the time when the state house of correction shall have been opened for the reception of all offenders, all courts having criminal jurisdiction in Michigan may sentence all male persons duly convicted of a felony before them, and who shall be at the time of the sentence of the full age of sixteen years, and not more than twenty-five years of age and also all male persons duly convicted before them of a misdemeanor when the imprisonment shall not be less than ninety days." It was under this section of the statute that the respondent was sentenced to 90 days' imprisonment in the state house of correction and reformatory at Ionia. The prosecuting attorney of Kalamazoo county, who appeared and argued the case before us in behalf of the people, claims that this section authorizes the punishment inflicted by the recorder, and affirmed by the circuit court. The offense of which respondent was convicted was created by section 2271, How.St., which forbids any person not a druggist to sell, furnish to, or give any liquors, or beverage containing liquors, to any minor, or to any intoxicated person, etc. The next section forbids any person to keep any billiard room, etc., in the same room where intoxicating liquors are sold or kept for sale, and it also forbids any person to play billiards or any other game of chance where such liquor may be sold or kept for sale. Section 2273 makes it unlawful to...