State v. Hill

Decision Date07 November 1898
Citation147 Mo. 63,47 S.W. 798
PartiesSTATE v. HILL.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

3. 2 Rev. St. 1889, p. 2209, § 3, gives the judge of the criminal court of Buchanan county the powers of a circuit judge in criminal cases. Act March 1, 1897, vests him whenever called on by a circuit judge of another county to hold a term or a part thereof, with the powers of a circuit judge in civil and criminal proceedings. Held, that the latter provision is invalid for want of uniformity of operation.

Appeal from circuit court, Platte county; R. E. Culver, Special Judge.

Joel Hill was convicted of an offense, and he appeals. Reversed.

James W. Coburn, James H. Hull, and James W. Boyd, for appellant. Edward C. Crow, Atty. Gen., and Sam. B. Jeffries, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

SHERWOOD, J.

The powers and jurisdiction of the judge of the criminal court of Buchanan county are defined in section 3, p. 2209, 2 Rev.St. 1889. That section as it was originally, and the amendment thereto, approved March 1, 1897, are as follows, the amendment being indicated by the brackets:

"Sec. 3. Powers and Jurisdiction. The judge of said court shall be a conservator of the peace throughout his county, and shall have the power and jurisdiction to issue, hear and determine writ of habeas corpus, and to admit to bail all parties entitled thereto, and shall have such powers as the several judges of the circuit courts in this state have in criminal cases, [and may be called upon by the judge of any circuit in this state to try any cause pending in such circuit in which a change of venue has been granted from the judge, or to hold any term or part of term of court for such circuit judge, and in such matters shall have such powers as the several judges of the circuit courts of this state now have in civil and criminal proceedings.]"

If the foregoing amendment is valid, then the judge of the criminal court of Buchanan county had the right to sit in the trial of this cause on the bench of the circuit court of Platte county, having been called upon so to do by the judge of that court.

In order to determine the question thus presented, it is necessary to examine the provisions of section 53 of article 4 of the constitution, so far as applicable to the case before us. The general assembly is prohibited from passing any local or special law "regulating the practice, or jurisdiction of, or changing the rules of evidence in, any judicial proceeding or inquiry before courts," etc. Is the amendment of 1897, then, "a local or special law"? In Ex parte Allen, 67 Mo. 534, it was held that "An act making provision for supplying the place of a criminal judge in the event of his sickness, absence or inability to hold court" was one regulating the criminal practice and proceedings in courts of record. And in State v. Kring, 74 Mo. 612, it was decided that the act approved March 26, 1881 (Laws 1881, p. 119), in relation to and which changed the method of procedure only in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • State v. Fort
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 12, 1908
    ...any local or special law. The ground of this contention is predicated upon what was said by this court in the case of State v. Hill, 147 Mo. 63, 47 S. W. 798. In that case the Legislature in 1897 passed an act providing that the judge of the criminal court of Buchanan county might be called......
  • State v. Ward
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 3, 1931
    ... ... v. County ... Court, 102 Mo. 539. (2) Sec. 5596, R. S. 1919, is ... unconstitutional and void, for the reason that it violates ... Sec. 54, Art. 4, Constitution of Missouri. Bridges v ... Mining Co., 252 Mo. 53; State ex rel. v ... Messerly, 198 Mo. 351; State v. Hill, 147 Mo ... 63; State v. Walsh, 136 Mo. 400; Ashbrook v ... Schaub, 160 Mo. 107; State v. Grandeman, 132 ... Mo. 326; Steele v. Railroad Co., 84 Mo. 57; ... State ex rel. v. Walton, 69 Mo. 556. (3) Sec. 5596, ... R. S. 1919, was repealed by the Legislature in 1929 and prior ... ...
  • Howell v. Sherwood
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 20, 1912
    ...for under the doctrines of State ex rel. v. Fort, 210 Mo. 512, 109 S.W. 737, and authorities cited in that case. The case of State v. Hill, 147 Mo. 63, 47 S.W. 798, relied on defendant, is considered in the concurring opinion of Brother Woodson in the Fort case and differentiated (q. v.). I......
  • State ex rel. Judah v. Fort
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 25, 1908
    ... ... view a special law and is prohibited by section 53 of article ... 4 of the State Constitution, and that it is void both as a ... substantive enactment and as an indirect repeal of the ... general statute (sec. 2597, R. S. 1899). State v ... Hill, 147 Mo. 63; Ashbrook v. Schaub, 160 Mo ... 107; State v. Etchman, 189 Mo. 160; Henderson v ... Koenig, 168 Mo. 356. (6) The act contains no provision ... governing changes of venue in any other county than Jackson ... county, nor any other court than the criminal court of ... Jackson ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT