State ex rel. Fuhs v. Kartak
| Decision Date | 02 August 1935 |
| Docket Number | 30608. |
| Citation | 262 N.W. 221,195 Minn. 188 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. FUHS v. KARTAK. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; R. D. O'Brien, Judge.
Original proceeding on a writ of habeas corpus by the State, on the relation of Ernest Fuhs, against R. J. Kartak, superintendent of the St. Paul workhouse, city of St. Paul, Minn.
Relator discharged.
Syllabus by the Court .
On appeal from a conviction in a justice court of the violation of a municipal ordinance, the district court has no jurisdiction to try and convict the defendant for a crime against a statute which is beyond the jurisdiction of the justice court, there having been no new and original proceeding against the defendant in the district court.
Allan McGill, of St. Paul, for relator.
M. F Kinkead, Co. Atty., and James F. Lynch, Asst. Co. Atty., both of St. Paul, for respondent.
Original proceeding on a writ of habeas corpus. This opinion is filed in support of the order made June 26, 1935, discharging relator from respondent's custody.
Relator was originally proceeded against in the court of a justice of the peace in North St. Paul. The complaint charged him with driving an automobile on a highway while in an intoxicated condition. The complaint, on a printed form, charged the offense as one against both an ordinance of the village of North St. Paul and also the statute (Mason's Minn. St 1927, § 2720-61). Without amendment of the complaint, relator was convicted in the justice court. He appealed on questions of law and fact to the district court. There he demurred to the complaint upon the ground that more than one offense was charged. Thereupon the state moved for leave to strike from the complaint the portion charging a violation of the village ordinance. That motion was granted and the demurrer overruled.
The trial proceeded and relator was convicted and committed to the St. Paul workhouse for a term of six months.
The complaint charged two offenses, one against the ordinance and the other against the statute. The latter, a gross misdemeanor, is beyond the jurisdiction of the justice court. Hence, the only thing which could have been tried and for which there could have been a conviction in the justice court was the offense against the ordinance. In that court, relator was convicted of that offense or he was convicted of nothing. His appeal to the district court, consequently ...
To continue reading
Request your trial