People v. Kaminsky

• Decision Date: 01 February 1889
• Citation: 41 N.W. 833,73 Mich. 637
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. KAMINSKY.

41 N.W. 833

73 Mich. 637

PEOPLE v. KAMINSKY.

Supreme Court of Michigan

February 1, 1889

Certiorari to circuit court, Wayne county; BREVOORT, Judge.

MORSE J.

The respondent, a resident of the city of Detroit, was arrested for bastardy on the complaint of Annie Saworsky, also a resident of that city. The warrant was issued by Police Justice Haug, and the defendant bound over to the circuit court of Wayne county for trial. At the trial in the last-named court, and before the impaneling of the jury, the counsel for the respondent moved to dismiss the cause, on the ground that the police court of Detroit had no jurisdiction in bastardy proceedings, and that the complaint should have been made before a justice of the peace. This motion was denied by the court. By act No. 161 of the Public Acts of 1885, establishing the police court of Detroit, jurisdiction is given "to hear, try, and determine, or otherwise lawfully entertain, conduct, and dispose of all cases and proceedings arising within the corporate limits of the city of Detroit, under the laws of this state relative to disorderly persons, illegitimate children," etc.; also to "entertain, conduct, and dispose of all preliminary examinations into crimes misdemeanors, and offenses." Pub. Acts 1885, � 10, No 161, p. 219. Under this act the police court has undoubted authority to examine a person on the charge of bastardy, and to bind him over to the circuit court for trial. See People v. Phalen, 49 Mich. 492, 13 N.W. 830 referring to police court act of Grand Rapids, (Pub. Acts 1879, � 6, No. 76, p. 68.)

Upon the trial the following colloquy occurred between the counsel for the defendant and the court: " Mr Springer. I have got four witnesses not here. They are subp naed. Subp nas were issued this morning at half-past 9 and the witnesses should have been here by this time. I want to show that this young woman, in March, 1887, about the time they claim this young man had intercourse with her, had intercourse with one of the witnesses that I am waiting for. He said that he would swear to it. Court. If he will come into court and swear to it now, I will instruct the jury to utterly disregard any such testimony as that. If anybody will come into court and swear to criminal intercourse with her, when the matter is being tried, I do not believe he is a fit man to be heard before a jury. Mr. Springer. I want an exception to the court's remarks as improper and prejudicial to the defendant. I also want to show by other witnesses, three witnesses have seen this young woman have intercourse with other men, about the time she claims the defendant was intimate with her. Court. You had better call them. Maybe they are here. I would like to see a young man come into the court and swear to anything like that. Go ahead and make your argument, if they are not here. Note...