State v. Huck

• Citation: 203 S.W. 484
• Decision Date: 17 April 1918
• Docket Number: No. 16184.,16184.
• Parties: STATE ex rel. McMAHON v. HUCK, Circuit Judge.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

203 S.W. 484

STATE ex rel. McMAHON v. HUCK, Circuit Judge.

No. 16184.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

April 17, 1918.

Original proceeding in prohibition by the State, on relation of William C. McMahon, against Peter H. Huck, Judge of Circuit Court of St. Genevieve County. Absolute writ issued.

B. H. Boyer, of Farmington, for relator. R. C. Tucker, of Flat River, for respondent.

ALLEN, J.

This is an original proceeding in prohibition. On March 14, 1918, one of the judges of this court, in vacation, issued a preliminary writ of prohibition, on the application of relator herein, returnable into court, prohibiting the respondent, as judge of the circuit court of St. Genevieve county, from causing to be entered in the records of said circuit court, as and for an order or decree of such court, a certain order or decree purporting to have been rendered by him in vacation, until the further order of this court, and commanding the respondent to appear on a day named and show cause, if any he had, why he should not be absolutely prohibited and forbidden to so enter such decree in said records. To the preliminary writ and relator's petition the respondent by counsel duly filed his return; and thereupon relator filed a motion, in the nature of a demurrer to the return, praying that our writ be made absolute. Upon the issues thus joined the matter has been argued and submitted.

The conceded facts may be summarized as follows: Some time in January, 1918, the prosecuting attorney of St. Genevieve county, during the vacation of the circuit court of that county, instituted an injunction proceeding against the relator herein, William C. McMahon, to restrain him from further conducting a "wholesale liquor business" in said county, upon the ground that said business was being so conducted as to constitute a public nuisance; and the prosecuting attorney presented to the respondent, judge of said circuit court of St. Genevieve county, in chambers, in said St. Genevieve county, an application for the issuance of a temporary injunction against relator, to restrain him from conducting such business until a final hearing of said injunction suit upon the merits. The hearing before the respondent judge, on the application for a temporary injunction, was set for January 26, 1918, and, it is said,. by agreement of counsel it was arranged, that this hearing be had at the courthouse in the city of Farmington in St. Francois county. This hearing was deferred until February 11, 1918, when the respondent undertook to hold a final hearing, "or hearing for the final determination of the matter in controversy," sitting at the courthouse in Farmington, St. Francois county. The return sets up that this was done by consent of counsel and for the convenience of witnesses, and the demurrer admits this as being true, but the matter is unimportant. The respondent heard the evidence adduced by both parties to the suit, and the arguments of counsel, and took the matter under advisement until February 15, 1918, on which day respondent undertook to render a final decree in the cause, as and for a decree of the circuit court of St. Genevieve...