State v. Grunke

• Decision Date: 25 May 1894
• Parties: STATE v. GRUNKE.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

88 Wis. 159

59 N.W. 452

STATE

v.GRUNKE.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

May 25, 1894.

Certified from circuit court, Sheboygan county; N. S. Gilson, Judge.

Albert Grunke was convicted of having unlawfully refused to provide for his wife and minor children. Questions certified to the supreme court. Answered in affirmative.J. L. O'Connor, Atty. Gen., and J. M. Clancey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

D. T. Phalen, for defendant.

ORTON, C. J.

The defendant was arrested on the complaint of one Albert Hoehne, charging him with having unreasonably refused and neglected to provide for his wife and minor children, being of sufficient ability or able to earn the means of their support. He was brought before the judge of the municipal court of the city of Sheboygan for his examination, and on such examination he was bound over or held to the circuit court of Sheboygan county for trial. The defendant appearing in the circuit court, and having been personally arraigned on information for said offense, and having pleaded not guilty, a jury was duly impaneled and sworn to try the case. Thereupon the defendant's attorney moved the court to discharge the defendant on the grounds: First, that the statute providing for said offense, and the trial thereof, requires the defendant to be bound over to the county or municipal court of Sheboygan county, and that, therefore, the circuit court of said county has no jurisdiction of the case; second, that the act of the legislature, to wit, chapter 318 of the Laws of 1887, is unconstitutional. The case having been submitted to the jury on the conclusion of the testimony, the jury found the defendant guilty of the offense charged in the information; whereupon the judge of the court, deeming the question of law arising in the case so important as to require the decision of this court, has reported the case with the following question: “Has the circuit court of Sheboygan county jurisdiction to try the defendant for the offense charged in the information?” This is a very broad and general question. We may well ask, why not? What are the grounds on which the jurisdiction of the court is questioned? It may be that the learned judge of the circuit court had in mind only the reason stated by the counsel of the defendant as the ground of the above motion. That reason was that said statute required the defendant to be bound over or held for trial to the county or municipal court of the county, and not to the circuit court. Rather than to dismiss the report on account of the vagueness of the question, we will consider that as the true and only reason why the court had not jurisdiction of the case; that being the only reason appearing in the record. Section 2 of the act provides that the several county and municipal courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the circuit courts of the offense, and shall be deemed open at all times to hear, try, and determine all cases arising under this act. Section 4 provides that when, on such examination, the accused shall be bound over or held for trial, the record shall be forthwith transmitted to the county or municipal court, and the accused be ordered to appear before such court for trial, and the district attorney shall file information, etc. Do these sections conflict? The first clearly gives to the circuit courts jurisdiction over this offense with the county and municipal courts, and the other section does not take that jurisdiction away from the circuit courts. Then they do not conflict. Section 4 leaves the jurisdiction of the circuit court over this offense as section 2 has recognized or conferred it. The circuit courts are given original jurisdiction of all matters civil and criminal within the state, not excepted in the constitution, and not thereafter prohibited by law by section 8, art. 7, of the state constitution. Section 4 of this act does not prohibit the circuit courts from having jurisdiction over this offense, and they therefore yet have it by the constitution. By the statute (section 2420, Rev. St.) the circuit courts “have the power to hear and determine,...