People v. Heffron

• Decision Date: 30 April 1884
• Citation: People v. Heffron, 53 Mich. 527, 19 N.W. 170 (Mich. 1884)
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. HEFFRON.

19 N.W. 170

53 Mich. 527

PEOPLE v. HEFFRON.

Supreme Court of Michigan

April 30, 1884

An affidavit alleging that affiant "has good reason to believe, and does believe," that a certain person has committed an offense, is not sufficient to authorize a justice to issue a warrant for his arrest. The affidavit must be upon knowledge, and not mere conjecture.

An indictment alleging that defendant "was engaged in, and did carry on, the business" of selling at retail, and as a beverage, spirituous liquors, etc., does not charge an offense under the laws of Michigan, unless some particular instance of the illegal traffic is specified.

Error to Schoolcraft.

J.J. Van Riper and W.F. Riggs, for plaintiff.

Geo. K Newcombe, for defendant and appellant.

CHAMPLIN J.

This suit is a prosecution of the defendant for violation of the provisions of sections 1 and 9 of act 259 of the Laws of 1881, before Amos L. Hill, a justice of the peace in the village of Manistique, in the county of Schoolcraft, upon the complaint of William F. Riggs. The defendant was tried by a jury before the justice, a verdict of guilty was rendered and upon the verdict the justice rendered a judgment that the defendant pay a fine of $25 and costs of prosecution, of the amount of $28.21, and that he be imprisoned in the county jail for a period of 60 days from the twenty-third day of June, 1883, and, in case of said fine and costs not being paid, that he should be further detained in said jail until the same was paid, provided the whole term of imprisonment shall not exceed ninety days from and including the twenty-third day of June. The suit was removed by certiorari to the circuit court for the county of Schoolcraft, and the judgment of the justice was affirmed by the circuit court, and was ordered to be executed. The suit is brought to this court by writ of error.

The errors relied upon here, are: First, the insufficiency of the complaint; and, second, the admission of testimony of the witness M.H. Quick, called on the part of the prosecution.

The affidavit upon which respondent was arrested reads as follows:

"State of Michigan, County of Schoolcraft--ss: The complaint of William F. Riggs, prosecuting attorney of said county taken and made before me, Amos L. Hill, a justice of the peace of Manistique, in said county, who being duly sworn says, that heretofore to-wit, at the village of Manistique, in the township of Manistique, and in the county aforesaid, on the fifth day of June, A.D.1883, and on divers other days and times between that day and the seventh day of June, 1883, at the village of Manistique aforesaid, divers persons appeared in the streets of said village intoxicated; that there are no person or persons authorized by law in said village of Manistique to sell, furnish, give, or deliver to such persons, so intoxicated as aforesaid, at retail, to be used as a beverage, any of the liquors specified in section one of act No. 259 of the public acts of the legislature of the state of Michigan, passed at the regular session of A.D.1881; that Dennis Heffron pretends to be the proprietor of the Arcade saloon in said village, and to be a dealer in such liquors, at the times and place aforesaid; that this affiant has good reason to believe, and does believe, that said Dennis Heffron, at the times aforesaid and at the place aforesaid, was engaged in and did carry on the business of selling, furnishing, and delivering to divers persons, at retail and as a beverage, spirituous and malt liquors, without first having executed and delivered to the county treasurer of said county the bond required by sections one and nine of said act; he, said Heffron, then and there not being a druggist, contrary to the form, etc. WM. F. RIGGS, Prosecuting Attorney.

"Subscribed and sworn to before me this fourteenth day of June, 1883.

"A.L. HILL, Justice of the Peace."

This affidavit, within the repeated rulings of this court, as well as the most elementary principles of criminal law, is entirely insufficient to confer any jurisdiction upon the...