State v. Frederick J. Emsweller. State
| Decision Date | 18 April 1916 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | State v. Frederick J. Emsweller.State v. Joseph J. Jenkins. |
1. Criminal Law Jurisdiction Justice of the Peace Sufficiency of Warrant.
A conviction by a justice of the peace on a warrant stating no facts constituting an offense is void. (p. 220).
2. Same Summary Trial Authority for Arrest.
An arrest made on a void search warrant is illegal, and a conviction of the person arrested thereon, in a justice's court, is illegal and void. (p. 220).
3. Searches and Seizures Search Warrant Validity.
A search warrant not describing and designating some particular house, building or place for search, is void. (p. 220).
4. Intoxicating Liquors Prosecution Sufficiency of Warrant.
A warrant charging that intoxicating liquors are being manufactured, sold, offered, exposed, kept or stored for sale, or bartered, in a certain suit case, trunk or other container in the possession of a certain person in the roads, streets, alleys or room in the county, does not charge the person in whose possession the suit case, trunk or container is alleged to be, with manufacturing, selling etc. nor with having, keeping or carrying such liquors unlawfully, nor with any other offense under the statute. (p. 217).
5. Same Offenses Carrying Liquor.
Chapter 13 of the Acts of 1913, as amended by chapter 7 of the Acts of 1915, does not make it unlawful for a citizen to carry or transport one-half of one gallon of intoxicating liquors, without a statutory label, or more with such label, on and along any public highway, to his home for his personal use there. (p. 219).
6. Criminal Law Justices of the Peace Docket.
A justice's docket entry of judgment in a criminal case need not recite findings of fact sufficient to constitute an offense, and a person under conviction by such a judgment will not be discharged on a writ of habeas corpus for lack of such recital; but such docket entries are only prima facie evidence of the jurisdictional facts essential to a valid conviction. (p. 221).
7. Same Habeas Corpus Right to Belief Plea of Guilty.
A plea of guilty to a void warrant involves no admission of guilt and does not preclude discharge on a writ of habeas corpus. (p. 224).
8. Same Writ of Error Dismissal.
Discharge on such writ, of a person prosecuting a writ of error to a judgment refusing him an appeal from the judgment under whch he is illegally restrained of his liberty, terminates the controversy involved in the writ of error, and it will be dismissed, on such discharge, as then involving only a moot case. (p. 225).
9. Same Appeal Right of Defendant.
A person under conviction of a criminal offense by a justice of the peace is entitled to an appeal within a reasonable time, as a matter of right. (p. 225).
10. Same.
Such an appeal should be allowed by the justice who rendered the judgment, if applied for within a reasonable time, and, if he refuses it, application therefor may be made to the circuit court of the county, or the judge thereof in vacation. (p. 225).
11. Same Writ of Error Appeal from Justice of the Peace.
Refusal of the justice to allow such an appeal is sufficient cause for allowance thereof by such court or judg3, and refusal thereof by the latter, under such circumstances, justifies a writ of error from this court to the judgment of refusal. (p. 225).
12. Same Writ of Error Revicio.
A doubt arising on the evidence as to whether such preliminary application was made to the justice should be resolved in favor of the applicant for the appeal. (p. 226).
(Miller, Judge, absent.)
Error to Circuit Court, Monongalia County.
Frederick J. Emsweller was convicted of a violation of the liquor law by a justice of the peace, and applied for a writ of habeas corpus to John B. Wallace, sheriff, and others. Judment refusing discharge, and he brings error. Reversed and prisoner discharged. From a judgment denying an appeal from the justice's judgment of conviction, he also brings error.
Writ of error dismissed.
Joseph J. Jenkins was convicted of a violation of the liquor law by a justice of the peace, and from a judgment refusing an appeal he brings error.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Van A. Barrickman, for plaintiffs in error.
Fred 0. Blue and John T. Simms, for defendants in error.
Frederick J. Emsweller sentenced, by a justice of the peace to imprisonment in the county jail of Monongalia County for a period of sixty days, and further punished by the infliction of a fine of $100.00 and costs including an attorney's fee of $10.00, all to be worked out on the public roads, as for a violation of chapter 13 of the acts of the Legislature of 1913, known as the Yost Law, sought a discharge, in the circuit court of said county, on a writ of habeas corpus. To the judgment refusing to discharge him and remanding him, he obtained this writ of error. He was also denied an appeal from the justice's judgment to the circuit court, and obtained a writ of error here to the judgment of that court refusing an appeal. Joseph J. Jenkins, punished at the same time and in like manner and upon the same kind of a charge, also obtained a writ of error to a judgment refusing him an appeal.
The complaint, made by the chief of police of the city of Morgantown and ex-offlcio a constable of the county, charged that he had cause to believe intoxicating liquors were ''being manufactured, sold, offered, exposed, kept or stored for sale, or bartered in said county aforesaid in that certain suit case, trunk or other container in the possession of one F. J. Emsweller in the roads, streets, alleys or room in said county contrary to the laws of the State of West Virginia, '' and prayed a warrant for seizure of "all liquors found therein, together with all vessels, bar fixtures, screens, glasses, bottles, jugs and other appurtenances apparently used in the sale, keeping or storing of liquors contrary to law," and the arrest of "all parties or persons found in said room or place." The warrant recited the substance of the complaint and then commanded entry of "that certain room or place in said county aforesaid," and search and seizure of "all liquors found therein, together with all vessels" etc., and the arrest of "all parties or persons found in said premises." The return of the officer shows the arrest of Emsweller and seizure of six pints of beer in "said room." The entry on the justice's docket recites arraignment of the accused and his plea of guilty.
The statute under which the complaint is said to have been made is sec. 7 of ch. 13 of the Acts of 1913, as amended by ch. 7 of the Acts of 1915 providing as follows:
Sec. 31 of ch. 13 of the Acts of 1913, added by ch. 7, Acts of 1915, makes it unlawful for any person to bring or carry into the State, or from one place to another within the State, even when intended for personal use, liquors exceeding in the aggregate one-half of one gallon in quantity, unless there is plainly printed or written on the side or top of the suit case, trunk or other container in large display letters, in the English language, the contents of the container or containers, and the quantity and kind of liquors contained therein. Violation of this section is made a misdemeanor punishable by fine and imprisonment. It also says the liquors not labeled may be seized and shall be conclusive evidence of unlawful keeping, storing and selling, against the person having them in his possession.
Sec. 9 of the Act authorizes a warrant for the search of any house, building or other place in which it is charged the manufacture, sale, offering, keeping or storing for sale or bar ter of liquors contrary to law, is carried on, seizure of fixtures and arrest of persons found therein. The complaint and warrant here involved treat a suit case, trunk or other container as a place of manufacture, sale, offering, keeping or storing for sale or barter within the meaning of that section. They proceed upon the theory that the mere possession of intoxicating liquors in a suit case, trunk or other container in any road, street, alley or room is an offense. Sec. 9 contemplates a house, building, boat or place in which persons may be and perform the forbidden acts of manufacture, sale, etc. A suit case, trunk or other small container of liquors or packages of liquors is not such a place. Although the warrant commands a search of "that certain room or place," it is to be observed that no particular room or place is designated in either paper. Hence, it, too, must intend "that certain suit case, trunk or other container in the possession of one ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adkins v. Adkins
... ... wife, parties of the second part, all of the County of Wayne and the State of West Virginia ... [142 W.Va. 652] 'Witnesseth: ... 28; Allen v. Linger, 78 W.Va. 277, 88 S.E. 837; State v. Emsweller, 78 W.Va. 214, 88 S.E. 787; Linn v. Collins, 77 W.Va. 592, 87 S.E. 934; ... ...
-
State v. Eden
...having jurisdiction thereof upon application therefor within a reasonable time after such judgment is entered. . . ." State v. Emsweller, 78 W.Va. 214, 88 S.E. 787 (1916); Vetock v. Hufford, 74 W.Va. 785, 82 S.E. 1099 (1914).19 We do not consider here the question of whether the right grant......
-
State ex rel. Vance v. Arthur
...Workman v. Shaffer, 112 W.Va. 338, 164 S.E. 299; State ex rel. Constanzo v. Kindelberger, 88 W.Va. 131, 106 S.E. 434; State v. Emsweller, 78 W.Va. 214, 88 S.E. 787; State ex rel. Marcum v. Ferrell, 140 W.Va. 202, 83 S.E.2d 648; State ex rel. Cain v. Skeen, 137 W.Va. 806, 74 S.E.2d 413; Stat......
-
Cruikshank v. Duffield
...to a denial of the right to a trial by jury, since that right can not be accorded defendant by the justice. See State v. Emsweller (Jenkins), 78 W.Va. 214, 88 S.E. 787; and Vetock v. Hufford, 74 W.Va. 785, 82 S.E. 1099. But does the nonsupport statute unreasonably impede or clog the right o......