People v. Pond

• Decision Date: 06 October 1887
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. POND.

34 N.W. 647

67 Mich. 98

PEOPLE v. POND.

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 6, 1887

Appeal from circuit court, Bay county.

James Van Kleek, for the People.

The act conflicts with the provision of the constitution declaring that no law shall embrace more than one object, which shall be expressed in its title. People v. Treasurer of Kent Co., 36 Mich. 332; People v. Denahy, 20 Mich 349; Allor v. Wayne Auditors, 43 Mich. 99, 4 N.W 492; Daniels v. People, 6 Mich. 389; Chandler v Nash, 5 Mich. 409; People v. Hulbut, 24 Mich 44.

Lindner, Porter & Haffey, for defendant.

The establishment of municipal courts of civil and criminal jurisdiction is germane to the subject of acts for the incorporation of cities, and the act in question does not conflict with the constitution. People v. Mahaney, 13 Mich. 495; Ryerson v. Utley, 16 Mich. 269; People v. Insurance Co., 19 Mich. 398; Swartwout v. Railroad Co., 24 Mich. 398; People v. Monroe, 36 Mich. 70; People v. Bradley, Id. 447; Stockle v. Silsbee, 41 Mich. 615, 2 N.W. 900; Powell v. Jackson, 51 Mich. 129, 16 N.W. 369; Attorney General v. Hatch, 26 N.W. 860; Attorney General v. Amos, 27 N.W. 571; Hargrave v. Weber, 32 N.W. 921; In re Mayer, 50 N.Y. 504; Harris v. People, 59 N.Y. 599; Prescott v. City of Chicago, 60 Ill. 121; Guild v. City of Chicago, 82 Ill. 472; Larned v. Tiernan, 110 Ill. 175; Dill.Mun.Corp. � 51, note 2; Kurtz v. People, 33 Mich. 279; People v. Briggs, 50 N.Y. 553; In re Volkening, 52 N.Y. 650; Devlin v. Mayor, 63 N.Y. 8; Johnson v. People, 83 Ill. 432; Fuller v. People, 92 Ill. 182; Morford v. Unger, 8 Iowa, 82; People v. Hurst, 41 Mich. 334, 1 N.W. 1027; People v. Sligh, 48 Mich. 55, 11 N.W. 782; People v. Phalen, 49 Mich. 492, 13 N.W. 830; Gilowsky v. Connolly, 13 N.W. 444.

CHAMPLIN J.

At a recent session of the legislature an act was passed entitled "An act to revise 'An act to incorporate the city of Bay City,' approved March 30, 1881, as amended and revised by the several acts amendatory and revisionary thereof, and to add twenty-three new sections thereto, to stand as sections 149 to 171, inclusive, and to repeal sections 90 and 101 of said act." This act was approved April 16, 1887, and took immediate effect.

Section 161 reads as follows: "The police court shall have exclusive and original jurisdiction to hear, try, and determine all criminal cases wherein the crime, misdemeanor, or offense charged shall have been committed within the corporate limits of the city of Bay City," etc. The respondent was prosecuted for selling liquor in Bay City on the eleventh day of April, 1887, without having paid the tax therefor as provided in act No. 156, Laws 1881. Complaint was made, and a warrant was issued by a justice of the peace of the city of Bay City and county of Bay on the twelfth day of April, 1887, and respondent was arrested and brought before said justice. He was arraigned, and pleaded not guilty, and the cause was thereupon adjourned to the tenth day of May following. On the adjourned day, respondent moved to be discharged, on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction, which was overruled, a trial had, and respondent convicted. He took a certiorari to the circuit court, where the conviction was affirmed. Thereupon he sued out his writ of error to this court.

The errors assigned are as follows: "First. The circuit judge, on the hearing of said cause, erred in deciding, as did the justice of the peace on the trial before him (the said justice) of said cause, that he (the said justice) had jurisdiction to hear, try, and determine the said cause, there being then and there existing a police court having, by law, exclusive jurisdiction to hear, try, and determine all criminal cases wherein the crime, misdemeanor, or offense is charged to have been committed within the territory in which the offense in this cause is claimed to have been committed, namely, in the city of Bay City, Michigan. Second. The circuit judge, on the hearing of said cause, erred in deciding to affirm the judgment of the justice of the peace before whom said cause was tried. Third. The circuit judge, on the hearing of said cause, erred in deciding that the justice of the peace before whom the said cause was tried committed no error in overruling the motion of defendant to dismiss the proceedings in said cause, and discharge this defendant, for the reason that he (the said justice) had no jurisdiction by law to hear, try, and determine the said cause."

The claim is made that this amendment to the charter of Bay City by implication repeals or takes away the jurisdiction theretofore conferred upon justices of the peace in criminal matters, and affects not only those offenses which may be committed in the future, but applies to offenses committed before the act took effect, which were cognizable before justices of the peace, and upon which the jurisdiction of the justice had attached by proper complaint and arrest. We do not think such was the intention of the legislature. Properly construed, the act applies to those offenses which shall be committed after the act takes effect, and leaves those which had been committed before to be heard, tried, and determined before justices of the peace. This construction harmonizes the act amending the charter with the general law in force at the time of its passage.

It is claimed, in behalf of the people, that the act is unconstitutional for two reasons:

First. That it conflicts with that provision of the constitution which declares that no law shall embrace more than one object, which shall be expressed in its title. It is urged that the object of a city...