People v. Shufelt

• Decision Date: 29 April 1886
• Citation: People v. Shufelt, 61 Mich. 237, 28 N.W. 79 (Mich. 1886)
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. SHUFELT.

28 N.W. 79

61 Mich. 237

PEOPLE v. SHUFELT.

Supreme Court of Michigan

April 29, 1886

Error to Oceana.

The Attorney General, for the People.

L.G. Rutherford, for defendant.

MORSE, J.

The respondent was convicted before MARCUS H. BROOKS, a justice of the peace for Oceana county, of having kept his saloon open on the twenty-seventy day of November, 1884 Thanksgiving day, in violation of the liquor law.He was sentenced to pay a fine of $50 and the costs of prosecution, taxed at $37.28, and to confinement in the county jail for the term of 10 days.The case was taken to the circuit court on certiorari, and there affirmed.It now comes into this court upon writ of error.

Three adjournments were had before the justice prior to the day of trial.It is contended by the respondent that these adjournments were illegal and unauthorized, and a motion was made by his counsel, in justice's court, to quash the proceedings, and for his discharge, on the ground that the justice, by such illegal adjournments, had lost jurisdiction of the cause.The respondent was brought into court upon the warrant, December 11, 1884, at which time the cause was adjourned, without objection, until the eighteenth of the same month.Upon that day the respondent and his counsel appeared ready for trial, but the court was informed by telephone that the prosecuting attorney was sick, and could not attend, and desired a further adjournment.It was also shown that the constable had been unable to subpoena a witness, Henry D. Kidder, one of the parties upon whose examination under oath the justice had issued the warrant.Thereupon, against the objection of the respondent's counsel, the cause was again adjourned until the twenty-fourth day of December, 1884.We think the cause shown for adjournment a good one.The prosecuting attorney is the representative of the people, and it is made his duty, under the statute, specifically to prosecute offenses under this law, and his sickness, under the circumstances, entitled the people to a reasonable adjournment, and six days was not an unreasonable time.

On the twenty-fourth of December, 1884, the prosecuting attorney appeared and answered, as did also the respondent, both in person and by counsel.The prosecuting attorney moved for a further adjournment upon the return of the subpoena by the constable that the said Henry D. Kidder could not be found which motion was granted, against respondent's protest and the cause set down for January 8, 1885, at which time the suit was tried before a jury, and Kidder sworn as a witness on behalf of the people.It is claimed that the defendant did not have the speedy trial guarantied to him by the constitution, 21 days elapsing between the first adjourned day and the day of trial, and that there was no good cause shown for the last adjournment, inasmuch as the court and the respondent were not informed of the facts expected to be shown by this witness.From his first appearance in court, up to the day of trial, the respondent was allowed to go upon his own recognizance, and was not deprived of his liberty in any degree.If he had been confined in jail, there might have been some cause of complaint.As it was, we do not think his constitutional privilege was violated; and the delay in the trial was not unreasonable, nor to Iris disadvantage.The witness Kidder had been examined on oath at the time the complaint was made December 6, 1884, and such examination reduced to writing by the justice, and was on file with the other papers in the case, and it was therefore entirely unnecessary for the prosecution to show what they expected to prove by him.There was therefore no error in the action of the justice overruling the motion to quash the proceedings.

After the jury had been selected in the usual manner in justices' courts and the jurors had appeared, three of the six were...