State v. District Court of Sixteenth Judicial Dist. in and for Custer County
| Decision Date | 12 April 1921 |
| Docket Number | 4825. |
| Citation | 197 P. 565,59 Mont. 491 |
| Parties | STATE EX REL. BARNES v. DISTRICT COURT OF SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DIST. IN AND FOR CUSTER COUNTY ET AL. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Original application for prohibition by the State, on the relation of Ed Barnes, against the District Court of the Sixteenth Judicial District in and for the County of Custer and the Judge thereof. Alternative writ set aside, and application dismissed.
Frank Hunter and Will Truscott, both of Miles City, for relator.
Wellington D. Rankin, Atty. Gen., L. A. Foot, Asst. Atty. Gen., W. C Packer, of Miles City, and C. A. Spaulding, of Helena, for respondents.
Original application for writ of prohibition directed to the district court of Custer county and Hon. S.D. McKinnon, one of its judges, to stay further action in a search warrant proceeding instituted under the provisions of chapter 143 of the Session Laws of 1917, commonly called the Prohibition Enforcement Act.
Upon the filing of the petition, an alternative writ was issued. At the hearing on March 14 last, the defendants appeared by counsel and moved that the writ be quashed and the application dismissed on the ground that, upon the facts stated in the petition, the relator is not entitled to relief by means of prohibition. Upon the question thus raised, the application was submitted for decision.
The writ serves the office of arresting the proceedings of a judicial tribunal when such proceedings are without or in excess of jurisdiction. Rev. Codes, § 7227. It may issue only when there is no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Section 7228. This court has followed the rule that when it appears that any other adequate remedy is immediately available to the relator, the writ will be denied. State ex rel. Spalding v. Benton, 12 Mont 66, 29 P. 425; State ex rel. Browne v. Booher, 43 Mont. 569, 118 P. 271. It appears from the petition that at the hearing upon the return of the search warrant the relator appeared in response to notice given him by service of a copy of the warrant and claimed title to the property, containers etc., seized by the sheriff, and that after the hearing the court rendered final judgment of forfeiture. From this judgment relator was entitled to an appeal. State ex rel Prato v. District Court, 55 Mont. 560, 179 P. 497. The relator, therefore, has a remedy plain, speedy, adequate, and immediately available.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial