State ex rel. Brown v. Fitzgerald
| Decision Date | 06 December 1892 |
| Citation | 53 N.W. 799,51 Minn. 534 |
| Parties | State ex rel. John Brown v. John Fitzgerald, Workhouse Keeper |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Argued December 5, 1892
On the application of John Brown, relator, writs of Habeas Corpus and Certiorari were issued from this court to John Fitzgerald, keeper of the city workhouse of the City of St Paul, to produce in court the body of the relator, with the cause of his detention. The respondent made return that he held the relator by virtue of a conviction before the Municipal Court of the city, for violation of a city ordinance. It appeared from the returns that the relator was arrested by an officer without a warrant, was arraigned upon a written complaint, pleaded not guilty, waived a jury, was tried, convicted and sentenced to the workhouse.
Writ quashed, and relator remanded.
A. E Hawes and F. L. McGhee, for the relator.
No counsel appeared for respondent.
This is a habeas corpus issued to respondent, keeper of the workhouse, St. Paul, requiring him to bring the relator before us, with the cause of his detention. The cause returned is a commitment upon a conviction before the municipal court of St. Paul for violation of an ordinance of that city. The return to a writ of certiorari ancillary to the habeas corpus issued to that court makes it appear that the relator was arrested by an officer without warrant, taken before the municipal court, arraigned upon a written verified complaint, pleaded not guilty, waived a jury, and was convicted, and sentenced and committed to the workhouse.
The objection to the proceedings is that the arrest was illegal and under the decision in Wahl v. Walton, 30 Minn. 506, 16 N.W. 397, (16 N.W. 397,) it may be held that it was. From this it is claimed the court in receiving his plea and trying him acted without jurisdiction, and its judgment is therefore void. When a valid indictment is found, or, where no indictment is necessary, a valid complaint is filed, the court has jurisdiction to cause the defendant to be brought before it to answer to the indictment or complaint; and when he is actually before it, and called upon to plead, if he has any objection to make to the manner in which he was brought before it, he ought to make the objection then. It is not clear that had this relator made the objection when he was called on to plead it ought to have been sustained. In State v. Brewster, 7 Vt....
To continue reading
Request your trial