State ex rel. Attorney-General v. Flentge
| Decision Date | 31 March 1872 |
| Citation | 49 Mo. 488 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF MISSOURI ex rel. ATTORNEY-GENERAL, Relator, v. WILLIAM FLENTGE, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Misdemeanor in Office.
A. J. Baker, Attorney-General, and L. Brown, for relator.
In Vail v. Dinning, the only matter decided was that between private persons in matters of private right, this court would not exercise original jurisdiction, and that the Legislature had no right to confer it. Surely this doctrine and that decision have not necessarily any application here. This court possesses all of the common-law power that obtained in the Court of King's Bench. And this court (King's Bench) is the highest court of common law to punish all inferior magistrates and all other officers of justice, for willful and corrupt abuse of their authority against the obvious principles of natural justice.
Louis Houck, for respondent.
This case should be dismissed because this court has no original jurisdiction in cases of this character. No writ issued in this case. It is a proceeding under sections 18 to 23, inclusive of chapter 24, Gen. Stat. 1865, p. 55, by notice. See art. VI, §§ 2, 3 of the State constitution defining the jurisdiction of this court; also the case of Foster v. State, 41 Mo. 61, and finally, Vail v. Dinning, 34 Mo. 212, settling the whole doctrine in defendant's favor.
This is a proceeding under the statute concerning clerks (Wagn. Stat. 259-60, §§ 18-23), to subject the defendant to trial in this court for a misdemeanor in office, and the relator is met by a motion to dismiss the same for want of jurisdiction. It is not disputed that the proceeding is according to the statute, but the act itself is so far resisted as being unconstitutional. This is an old enactment made under our former constitution, which, so far as the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is concerned, was the same as the present one, yet no case has arisen in which the question has been raised.
In Vail v. Dinning, 44 Mo. 210, another statute was reviewed which attempted to give this court original jurisdiction, and upon full deliberation it was held to be unconstitutional. The principles settled in that case must control the present one. This court court has “appellate jurisdiction only,” except that it may issue certain specified writs “and other original remedial writs.” This statutory proceeding for trying a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Sizer
...and any statute attempting to do so is void. 11 Cyc. 706; Foster v. State, 41 Mo. 62; Vail v. Dinning, 44 Mo. 210; State ex rel. v. Flentge, 49 Mo. 488; ex rel. v. Miles, 210 Mo. 184; State ex inf. v. Towns, 153 Mo. 110; Wait v. Railroad, 204 Mo. 504; In re Letcher, 269 Mo. 150; State ex re......
-
State ex rel. Cave v. Tincher
...given by the Constitution, nor can they deprive it of its appellate jurisdiction." The doctrine here announced was approved in State ex rel. v. Flentge, 49 Mo. 488, in the court held that the Legislature was not authorized to enact a law subjecting clerks of courts to trial in the Supreme C......
-
In re Sizer
...attempting to do so is void. And they have cited 11 Cyc. 706; Foster v. State, 41 Mo. 61, 62; Vail v. Dinning, 44 Mo. 210; State ex rel. v. Flentge, 49 Mo. 488, 490; State ex rel. v. Miles, 210 Mo. 127, 184, 109 S. W. 595; State ex Inf. v. Towns, 153 Mo. 91, 110, 54 S. W. 552; Wait v. Ry., ......
-
State, ex rel. Selleck v. Reynolds
... ... anything an attorney could do looking to that deplorable ... [158 S.W. 682] ... result. Yet in the case of State ex rel. Attorney-General ... v. Flentge, 49 Mo. 488, we held that the Constitution ... did not confer jurisdiction upon us to try a clerk charged ... with misdemeanor in ... ...