People v. Haas

• Decision Date: 20 February 1890
• Citation: 79 Mich. 449,44 N.W. 928
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. HAAS.

44 N.W. 928

79 Mich. 449

PEOPLE v. HAAS.

Supreme Court of Michigan

February 20, 1890

Error to circuit court, Hillsdale county; VICTOR H. LANE, Judge.

Spencer D. Bishop, Pros. Atty., and S. V. R. Trowbridge, Atty. Gen., for the People. E. L. Koon and Guy M. Chester, for respondent.

MORSE J.

The respondent was convicted in the Hillsdale circuit court upon an information charging him with engaging in the business of selling and keeping for sale spirituous, malt, brewed, and fermented liquors, the same not being then and there proprietary patent medicines, at retail, without having paid his tax, posted his notice, and filed his bond as required by statute; the said Haas not being then and there a druggist. The respondent offered no evidence upon the trial, but relies upon certain alleged defects in the people's case, and errors assigned as occurring in the admission and rejection of testimony, and in the instructions of the court to the jury. The warrant issued by the justice of the peace, on which the respondent was arrested and bound over to the circuit court, was based upon a written complaint signed and sworn to by Myron G. Wood. This complaint alleged positively that on the 26th day of May, 1888, at the city of Hillsdale, and in the county of Hillsdale, in this state, the said John Haas "was engaged in the business of selling and keeping for sale, and did sell, spirituous, malt, brewed and fermented liquors, the same not being then and there proprietary patent medicines, at retail, without having paid in full the tax required by Act No. 313 of the Session Laws of 1887 of the state of Michigan, and without having the receipt and notice for such tax posted up as required by said Act No. 313, and without having made, executed, and delivered to the county treasurer of said county of Hillsdale the bond required by said Act No. 313, the said John Haas not being then and there a druggist, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the people of the state of Michigan." The warrant substantially followed the complaint. The justice returned to the circuit court that the said Haas, being brought before him, waived an examination in regard to the charge made against him; whereupon, it appearing to said justice that the said offense had been committed, and that there was probable cause to believe said John Haas to be guilty thereof, the said respondent was recognized to the circuit court, his bail being fixed at $200. The information against him contained three counts, the first one substantially in the words of the complaint and warrant. The third count charged a selling of such liquors on the said 26th day of May, 1888, to David Haines, "and to divers other persons unknown to this deponent," (the prosecuting attorney,) in addition to the other allegations as to non-payment of tax, non-posting of notice, and non-execution and filing of bond. The respondent refused to plead, and a plea of not guilty was ordered to be entered by the court, and was so entered. The trial commenced on the 26th day of March, 1889. When the first witness was sworn, the counsel for the defendant objected to any testimony being taken until the complaining witness came into court, and also for the reason that the justice never acquired jurisdiction to issue his warrant, and that the complaint, warrant, or information did not charge any offense known to the laws of this state. The record does not show upon what particular reasons this objection was grounded, and we are left to the briefs for information in this respect. We might well dismiss the objection right here, if the case was a civil one. As it is, we must express our disapproval of any course, even in a criminal trial, by which such a general objection as this is made to be used as a foundation for a claim of reversal of a conviction. The record ought to show that the defects in the proceedings, or claimed defects, were pointed out to the trial court; and this court certainly ought not to be left to the briefs of counsel to ascertain what took place upon the trial in the court below.

We find in the record an affidavit made by the justice, March 25 1889, in which he states that the warrant was issued upon the complaint and examination in writing of Myron G. Wood, and that no witnesses were examined by him before the issuing of said warrant, other than said Wood; that said warrant was issued on said written complaint and the oral examination of said Wood alone, and of no other person; and that from such oral examination it appeared that said Wood derived his knowledge and information that the tax was unpaid, and that the requisite bond had not been filed, from hearsay, and had no personal knowledge that the law had not been complied with in these respects. Upon the trial Wood was a witness, and testified that, at the time he made the complaint, the only knowledge that he had that Haas had not paid the tax or filed his bond came from the county treasurer, who informed him, upon inquiry, that no tax had been paid or bond filed by Haas. At the close of the testimony on behalf of the people, counsel for respondent moved the court to dismiss the case, on the ground that the justice never acquired any jurisdiction to issue his warrant, there being no competent evidence before said justice that Haas had not paid his tax or given his bond that the complaint was made by the complaining witness without having personal knowledge of the matters therein set forth; and the counsel thereupon offered to submit...