People v. Whipple

• Decision Date: 11 March 1896
• Citation: 108 Mich. 587,66 N.W. 490
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. WHIPPLE.

66 N.W. 490

108 Mich. 587

PEOPLE v. WHIPPLE.

Supreme Court of Michigan

March 11, 1896

Exceptions from circuit court, Ingham county; Rollin H. Person, Judge.

Amos Whipple, impleaded with Edward Sedweek, was convicted of keeping their saloon open on July 4, 1895, in violation of law, and appeals. Affirmed.

E. D Lewis and Jason E. Nichols, for appellant.

Fred A Maynard, Atty. Gen., and L. B. Gardner, Pros. Atty., for the People.

LONG C.J.

The respondents were prosecuted for keeping their saloon open on July 4, 1895. Respondent Whipple was convicted, and respondent Sedweek discharged, by order of the court. Respondents were the keepers of a saloon in the village of Williamston, under the firm name of Sedweek &amp Whipple, and, as such, sold spirituous and other liquors usually kept in saloons. The saloon was on the first floor of a building leased by them for that purpose. The rent of the entire building was paid from the joint proceeds of their business. On the lower floor, the front part was used as a cigar and tobacco room. Back of this was the saloon proper, and in a wing back of that was a room with tables for card playing and serving liquors. The upper part of the building is reached by back stairs, the foot of which is 10 or 12 feet distant from the rear door of the saloon. The rooms above were kept by the respondent Sedweek as living rooms, though his family did not reside there. On the morning of the 4th day of July, 1895, Sedweek went away, leaving the keys to the upper rooms with a man who had been rooming with him. During that day, respondent Whipple occupied these upper rooms, or some of them, and sold beer and other liquors therein to different parties, but closed the rooms up again before the return of Sedweek in the evening.

But one question need be discussed. It is contended that the justice had no jurisdiction to issue the warrant in the case, for the reason that the complaint, which was in writing, charged the commission of the offense solely upon information and belief. The complaint and warrant are returned here, but none of the other proceedings taken before the justice. The complaint recites that the complainant says "that he has been informed, and which information he believes to be true, and does believe, that heretofore, to wit," etc. There is no statement in the complaint that the complaining witness had any knowledge of the facts set up in the complaint as to the commission of the offense. The warrant recites that the complaining witness "this day made complaint in writing and on oath," etc. It was conceded upon the argument here by counsel that an examination was had before the justice. The information is set out in full, but whether the respondents pleaded to it the record does not show. After the jury were impaneled and after a witness had been sworn on the part of the people and the examination commenced, the record shows the following: "Respondents hereby renewing their motion to quash the information, and to...