State ex rel. Williams v. Shaughnessy

• Decision Date: 11 November 1930
• Citation: 232 N.W. 861,202 Wis. 537
• Parties: STATE EX REL. WILLIAMS v. SHAUGHNESSY, MUNICIPAL JUDGE.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

202 Wis. 537

232 N.W. 861

STATE EX REL. WILLIAMS

v.SHAUGHNESSY, MUNICIPAL JUDGE.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Nov. 11, 1930.

Petition filed in this court on October 8, 1930, for leave to institute an action under the general superintending control of this court over inferior courts. Application denied.

In conformance with the suggestions stated in Matter of Exercise of Original Jurisdiction of Supreme Court (Wis.) 229 N. W. 643, the petitioner, Clifton Williams, after due notice to the proposed defendant, the Honorable George A. Shaughnessy, applied to this court for leave to institute an action against the defendant, as judge of the municipal court of Milwaukee county, for a writ directing the defendant to strike out and expunge all or parts of the report of a grand jury. The petition alleges that the grand jury made the report in writing to the defendant, as judge of the municipal court, and that he caused it to be filed on May 7, 1929, with the clerk of that court; that, by reason of certain matters in the report which are derogatory of the petitioner, he has suffered and will continue to suffer great injury and damage as long as the report is permitted to remain on file with such clerk; that heretofore petitioner applied to that court for an order to strike out and expunge from the records of that court at least the parts of the report which cause injury and damage to petitioner; and that that court, Judge Shaughnessy presiding, denied the application on September 19, 1930.Swietlik & Burns, of Milwaukee, for petitioner.

Geo. A. Bowman, Dist. Atty., and Oliver L. O'Boyle, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of Milwaukee, for defendant.

FRITZ, J.

[1][2][3] The petitioner was entitled to relief in the municipal court only if he had a right to have portions of the grand jury report expunged from the court files. The right, which he thus sought to protect, was a substantial right. The remedy to which he resorted to protect that right was a special proceeding, as defined in sections 260.02 to 260.04 Stats. The final order of the court denying the relief, which the petitioner sought, was “a final order affecting a substantial right made in a special proceeding.” Consequently, the order was appealable, section 274.33(2), Stats., and an appeal to this court would have afforded petitioner an adequate remedy. On the other hand, it is well established that the remedy, if any, by appeal or writ of error, must be utterly inadequate, in order to justify...