Robison v. Haug

• Decision Date: 22 June 1888
• Citation: 71 Mich. 38,38 N.W. 668
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: ROBISON v. HAUG, POLICE JUSTICE.

38 N.W. 668

71 Mich. 38

ROBISON v. HAUG, POLICE JUSTICE.

Supreme Court of Michigan

June 22, 1888

Petition for mandamus.

LONG, J.

Petition for mandamus. The petitioner is prosecuting attorney of Wayne county, and represents in his petition that among other provisions of act No. 313 of the Public Acts of 1887 commonly known as the "Liquor Law," is that contained in section 31, as follows: "During the time when by the provisions of this act places where liquor is sold or kept for sale must be closed, all curtains, screens partitions, and other things that obstruct the view from the sidewalk, street, alley, or road in front of or at the side or end of said building, of the bar or place in said room where said liquors are sold or kept for sale, shall be removed." That on the 9th day of April, 1888 petitioner, as required by said act, presented to Edmund Haug, one of the police justices of the city of Detroit James Johnson, who was then and there ready to make oath to a complaint against one James Fluerimont, charging "that on the 8th day of April, 1888, that being the first day of the week, commonly called 'Sunday,' at the city of Detroit, county aforesaid, James Fluerimont was proprietor of and kept a saloon where intoxicating liquors were sold at retail in a room at No. 12 Catharine street in said city. That, being a day when by the provisions of act No. 313 of the Public Acts of 1887 said saloon was required to be closed, the curtains, screens, partitions, and other things that obstructed the view from the sidewalk and street, in front of the building in which said saloon was of the bar and place in said room where said liquors were sold and kept for sale, were not removed, but, on the contrary thereof, said James Fluerimont did then and there, as aforesaid, obstruct the view from said sidewalk and street in front of the building in which said saloon and room were, by not removing said curtains, screens, partitions, and other things that then and there obstructed the view so as aforesaid." That thereupon said police justice stated to said petitioner that question had been raised as to the validity of that section of said act, and, for the purpose of having the supreme court pass upon its validity, he would decline to take that complaint or any complaint charging a person with violating that section of said law, and that said police justice then and there refused to take said complaint. Petitioner prays the writ of mandamus to be directed to said police justice, commanding him forthwith to take such complaint, issue his warrant for the arrest of said James Fluerimont, to the end that said James Fluerimont may be duly examined in said police court, and, if probable cause to believe him guilty shall be found, that he may be held for trial in the recorder's court for said city. An order to show cause was made by the court during the April term, and the return of said justice filed in this court, which admits the facts stated in said petition. The respondent is represented by counsel, who claims that section 31 of the act above cited is unconstitutional; that it is in conflict with section 26 of article 6 of the constitution of this state, which provides that "the persons, houses, papers, and possessions of every person shall be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures." That it is also in conflict with the provisions of our state constitution, and of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution of the United States, that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." The claim made by counsel is that compelling a party to remove screens and other obstructions so as not to obstruct the view from the sidewalk and street in...