People v. Kennedy

Decision Date04 November 1885
Citation25 N.W. 318,58 Mich. 372
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
PartiesPEOPLE v. KENNEDY.

Error to Genesee.

Moses Taggart, for the People.

Lee &amp Aitken, for appellant.

MORSE C.J.

The defendant was convicted before a justice of the peace of violating section 2 of act No. 259 of the Session Laws of 1881, by selling intoxicating liquor to one Charles Neff, a person in the habit of getting intoxicated. The justice sentenced him to 10 days' imprisonment in the county jail, and that he pay a fine of $25 and the costs of prosecution, assessed at $76.54 and in default of the payment of said fine and costs he should be further imprisoned, not exceeding 90 days in all. From this defendant appealed to the circuit court for Genesee county. Upon his trial there he was again convicted on the twenty-eighth day of November, 1883. On the third day of December following, defendant was brought before the bar of the court for sentence, at which time, on the motion of the court, sentence was deferred until the first day of the next term of court. On the twenty-ninth day of February, 1884, which was not on the first day of term defendant was again brought into court, and the sentence deferred until March 10, 1884. There is no record of any court proceedings in March, but the affidavit of defendant hereafter mentioned, shows there was no session on the 10th.

The next proceeding we find is May 26, 1884, when it appears from the journal entry of that date that on motion of the prosecuting attorney defendant was again brought before the court for sentence. His attorneys objected, alleging as the ground of exception that he should have been sentenced at the November term of 1883, and that he could not then be legally sentenced, which objection was overruled, and the ruling excepted to by defendant's counsel. A desire being expressed by them to take the case to the supreme court, and a request made for a delay of sentence, it was again deferred until the first day of the next term, being August 18, 1884, and 20 days were given defendant in which to prepare and settle his bill of exceptions. It was also ordered that he enter into a recognizance in the sum of $500, with two sureties, to appear on the first day of next term, and prosecute his bill of exceptions in the supreme court to effect. On the eighteenth of August the defendant not appearing in court, and not having prepared or settled any bill of exceptions, on motion of the prosecuting attorney it was ordered that an attachment issue to bring him into court for sentence. The writ of attachment was issued on that day in accordance with said order, which was returned September 2, 1884, with the following indorsement:

"State of Michigan, Genesee Co.,--ss.: I do hereby return that after diligent search and inquiry I am unable to find the within-named Thomas Kennedy in my bailiwick. EUGENE PARSELL, Sheriff."

Nothing further appears in the record until September 22, 1884, when an order was entered that sentence having been deferred until that term of court, and Kennedy not having appeared, it was further deferred until the first day of the next term, and the court adjourned without day. The next step in this rather peculiar course of justice occurred on the sixth day of December, 1884, which was not the first day of term, when it was ordered by the court, after reciting the fact of conviction and other proceedings, "that said respondent appear on the first day of the next term of this court for sentence, and that sentence herein be, and the same is hereby, deferred until said time." Thereupon the court adjourned without day. The action of the court in relation to the defendant again slept until the fourth day of March, 1885, which was not the first day of term, when an order was made reciting that defendant had failed to appear according to the terms of the last order, and that attachment issue at once for the apprehension of said Kennedy, and that the sheriff "have him forthwith by his body before the court to receive that which shall then and there be enjoined upon him." The attachment was issued, and defendant brought into court by virtue of it the next day.

Defendant made a showing by affidavit setting forth that h...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT