People v. Rush

• Citation: 113 Mich. 539,71 N.W. 863
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan
• Decision Date: 28 June 1897
• Parties: PEOPLE v. RUSH.

71 N.W. 863

113 Mich. 539

PEOPLE v. RUSH.

Supreme Court of Michigan

June 28, 1897

Exceptions from circuit court, St. Clair county; Samuel W. Vance, Judge.

Louis Rush was convicted of illegal sales of intoxicating liquors and brings exceptions. Affirmed.

Fred A. Maynard, Atty. Gen., and Joseph Walsh Pros. Atty., for the People.

B. T Prentis, for respondent.

MOORE J.

The respondent was convicted of illegal sales of intoxicating liquors. The first errors assigned relate to the insufficiency of the complaint, which was made upon information and belief. The record shows the written complaint to have been made upon information and belief. The complaint charges a specific offense by apt words and phrases. The warrant recites, after setting up the making of the complaint, and what it contained. "Whereas, on examination on oath of the said Joseph T. Minnie by me, the said justice of the peace, it appears to me, the said justice of the peace, that said offense has been committed, and there is just cause to suspect the said Louis Rush to have been guilty thereof." People v. Whipple (Mich.) 66 N.W. 490. When the respondent was brought before the magistrate he did not question the jurisdiction of the magistrate, but pleaded not guilty to the complaint. An examination was had, witnesses were sworn, they were cross-examined by respondent, and he was held to the circuit court for trial. The warrant recites, that Mr. Minnie was examined on oath, though it does not show to what he testified. It has been repeatedly held that the examination held before the examining magistrate before the warrant issues does not need to be reduced to writing. People v Bechtel, 80 Mich. 630, 45 N.W. 585, and cases cited. The court did not err in refusing to dismiss the proceedings.

It is assigned as error that the court erred in not sustaining respondent's challenge for cause to Mr Spalding, who was offered as a juror. As the record does not show that Mr. Spalding sat as a juror, or that respondent had exhausted his peremptory challenges, it will not be necessary to discuss these assignments in detail. The examination, however, did not disclose that the challenge for cause was well taken. Sullings v. Shakespeare, 46 Mich. 408, 9 N.W. 451; People v. Barker, 60 Mich. 277, 27 N.W. 539; People v. Aplin, 86 Mich. 393, 49 N.W. 148. The testimony disclosed that the sales were made to a man by the name of Kerr, who was accompanied by a detective, and also to the detective himself, who was in the employ of the prosecuting attorney, for the purpose of learning whether illegal sales were made or not, and the court was asked to charge that the respondent could not be convicted for the offense charged because the prosecution was based upon testimony furnished by the detective for sales made to the detective, in the employ of the prosecuting attorney. The judge declined to so charge, and this is said to be error. This question was passed upon in the case of People v. Everts (Mich.) 70 N.W. 430, and cases cited therein, and the decision was averse to the contention of the respondent. It was...