People v. Parsons

• Decision Date: 11 November 1910
• Citation: People v. Parsons, 163 Mich. 329, 128 N.W. 225 (Mich. 1910)
• Parties: PEOPLE v. PARSONS.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

163 Mich. 329

128 N.W. 225

PEOPLE

v.PARSONS.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Nov. 11, 1910.

Error to Circuit Court, Eaton County; Clement Smith, Judge.

Romeyn C. Parsons was convicted of slander, and he brings error.Affirmed.

Argued before HOOKER, MOORE, McALVAY, BROOKE, and BLAIR, JJ. Lawton T. Hemans(Tuttle, McArthur & Dunnebacke, of counsel), for appellant.

R. R. McPeek, Pros.Atty., and Franz C. Kuhn, Atty. Gen., for the People.

BLAIR, J.

On February 12, 1909, complaint was made by a young woman before a justice of the peace charging respondent with imputing to her a want of chastity.A warrant was issued, respondent brought before the magistrate, an examination demanded, and the cause adjourned to March 13th; the justice treating the case as not within his jurisdiction to try.On March 13th the respondent was discharged upon the complaint of February 12, 1909, and a new complaint and warrant was issued and the respondent brought before the court, whereupon an adjournment of the case was taken to April 1, 1909.Respondent was required to, and did, furnish bail in the sum of $1,000 for his subsequent appearance.On April 1, 1909, respondent appeared in person and by attorney, and made and filed a written motion asking an adjournment of the case to enable him to procure witnesses and to obtain the assistance of counsel to try the case.The case was thereupon adjourned to April 2d.On April 2, 1909, respondent made and filed a further showing for a continuance, and in his second motion asked: ‘That the above-entitled cause may be adjourned for a period of four days or thereabouts, or such other time as shall enable him to prepare for the defense of said cause, for the reasons set forth in the affidavit hereto annexed.’The case was adjourned to April 28th; respondent and his counsel stating in response to an inquiry from the justice that such adjournment was satisfactory to them.The case was tried by a jury, who finally disagreed.Before the jury was sworn, respondent filed a motion asking for his discharge, upon unmerous grounds, among which were that the complaint and warrant charged no offense known to the laws of this state, and that the court had lost jurisdiction to proceed with the case because the case had been illegally adjourned.This motion was overruled.

At the beginning of the trial, respondent's counsel objected to the introduction of evidence in the case for the reason that the court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial because of such illegal adjournment.At the conclusion of the trial, a motion to dischargerespondent for the reason that no offense was charged against him, and that the court had lost jurisdiction by reason of the illegal adjournment, was made and overruled.The jury having disagreed upon the first trial, the respondent again appeared in court on April 30, 1909, and filed another motion asking for his discharge upon the grounds, among others, that the complaint and warrant charged no offense and that the court had lost jurisdiction by reason of such illegal adjournment.Respondent was thereupon again placed upon trial, whereupon he filed a written waiver of jury, and asked that the case be tried before the justice.The case was thereupon tried before the court, the respondent submitting no proofs in his defense; whereupon the court found respondent guilty, and adjourned the case to May 5, 1909, at which time respondent was required to appear for sentence.On May 5, 1909, respondent appeared, and sentence was imposed upon him by the justice in the following language: ‘The court did thereupon adjudge and determine that the said respondent should pay a fine of $50 and costs of prosecution, taxed at $24.51.’The cause was thereupon removed to the circuit court for the county of Eaton, by certiorari.The circuit judge affirmed the judgment of the justice and entered an order, mandatory in form, that the respondent pay to the clerk of the circuit court for the county of Eaton the sum specified in the sentence of the court below, namely, a fine of $50 and costs of prosecution, taxed at $24.51.The circuit judge having affirmed the judgment of the justice, the case was brought to this court upon writ of error.

Respondent asks that the judgment be reversed, and that he be discharged, for the reasons: (1) That the justice lost jurisdiction in adjourning the case more than 30 days; (2) the complaint and warrant charge no offense known to the law; (3) that there was no evidence submitted upon either the first or second trials before the justice that the things alleged to have been said by respondent were false in fact; (4) the insufficiency of the justice's docket; (5) the sentence imposed is uncertain and indefinite.

1.Section 1021, Comp. Laws, provides as follows: ‘On the return of the warrant, with the accused, the said justice shall proceed to hear, try and determine the cause within one week after the return of the same, unless the absence of witnesses from the county without the...