People v. Kelly

• Decision Date: 10 December 1940
• Docket Number: No. 122.,122.
• Parties: PEOPLE v. KELLY.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

295 Mich. 632

295 N.W. 341

PEOPLE

v.KELLY.

No. 122.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Dec. 10, 1940.

J. Edward Kelly was charged with having violated township ordinance in erecting and permitting use of building in township that did not conform in area and cubical content to requirements of ordinance. From an order of the circuit court dismissing the justice court complaint and warrant, the People of the state of Michigan appeal.

Order of circuit court reversed, and case remanded, with directions.Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; Henry G. Nicol, judge.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Schulte & Pare, of Farmington, for appellant.

Roy E. Apt, of Detroit, for appellee.

BUTZEL, Justice.

We granted the people leave to appeal from an order of the circuit court dismissing a justice court complaint and warrant. The questions presented are, (1) whether the justice court had jurisdiction of the subject matter, and (2) whether the complaint and warrant were properly dismissed for failure adequately to apprise the accused of the charge against him.

Section 5 of Act No. 302 Pub.Acts 1937 (Stat.Ann. § 5.2962(5) empowers a township board of any organized township immediately adjacent and contiguous to the boundary of a city having a population of 40,000 or more to provide by ordinance ‘regulations for established districts or zones pursuant to the purposes of this act and determine the manner of enforcing such regulations.’ Another part of section 5 provides: ‘The township board shall in any ordinance enacted under the provisions of this act, designate the proper official or officials whose duty it shall be to enforce the provisions of such ordinance and provide penalties for the violation thereof.’

The township of Redford, which adjoins the city of Detroit, exercised the authority thus granted by enacting such an ordinance and providing penalties for its enforcement. No question has been raised as to the regularity or legality of the ordinance.

Complaint was made in a Redford township justice court against defendant, J. Edward Kelly, charging that he had violated the ordinance in erecting and using a building in Redford township that did not conform in area and cubical content to the requirements of the township ordinance, and that it was a detriment to the public health, safety, comfort, and general welfare of the district. The case was brought to trial and the justice of the peace ordered the nuisance abated within two weeks, imposed a fine of $25 and $15 costs; the fine was suspended. On appeal to the circuit court, the charge was dismissed without trial on the merits, on the grounds that the justice of the peace could not enforce the township ordinances, and that the warrant and complaint were ambiguous and failed to charge a corpus delicti.

The Constitution of 1908, Art. VII, § 16, provides: ‘In civil cases, justices of the peace shall have exclusive jurisdiction to the amount of one hundred dollars and concurrent jurisdiction to the amount of three hundred dollars, which may be increased to five hundred dollars, with such exceptions and restrictions as may be provided by law. They shall also have such criminal jurisdiction and perform such duties as shall be prescribed by law.’

We look to the statutes for the jurisdiction of the justices of the peace to try offenders. In the Matter of Sarah Way, 41 Mich. 299, 1 N.W. 1021;Allor v. Wayne County Auditors, 43 Mich. 76, 4 N.W. 492. 3 Comp.Laws 1929, § 17426 (Stat.Ann. § 28.1192) provides: ‘Any justice of the peace shall have power to hold a court subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, to hear and determine charges for all offenses arising within his county punishable...