State v. Police Court of City of Hoquiam

• Decision Date: 03 June 1909
• Citation: 53 Wash. 361,101 P. 1082
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE ex rel. LYON et al. v. POLICE COURT OF CITY OF HOQUIAM et al.

101 P. 1082

53 Wash. 361

STATE ex rel. LYON et al. v. POLICE COURT OF CITY OF HOQUIAM et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 3, 1909

Appeal from Superior Court, Chehalis County; Mason Irwin, Judge.

Prohibition by the State, on the relation of D. E. Lyon and another against the Police Court of the City of Hoquiam and another. From an order discharging an alternative writ, petitioners appeal. Affirmed.

W. H Abel, for appellants.

Sidney Moor Heath, for respondents.

FULLERTON J.

On August 8, 1908, the appellants applied to the superior court of Chehalis county for a writ of prohibition, averring that they had been charged with the offense of violating an ordinance of the city of Hoquiam, a city of the second class and had been brought before one Seth Warren, police judge of that city, for trial; that the ordinance which they were accused of violating was unconstitutional and void and too uncertain in its terms to be enforced; that when they were brought before the police judge, they entered a plea of not guilty to the offense charged, and moved the court for a change of venue on the ground of actual bias against them on the part of the police judge; that the police judge wrongfully and unlawfully refused to grant a change of venue, and wrongfully and unlawfully insisted on the immediate trial of the offense charged, setting the cause down for trial for August 8, 1908, at 10 o'clock a. m.; that they could not have an impartial trial before the police judge; and that the police judge had theretofore taken the position that the relators were not entitled to a fair trial, and would wrongfully and arbitrarily try the cause unless prohibited by the court. A copy of the affidavit filed before the police judge for a change of venue was attached to the application. An alternative writ was issued returnable on August 11, 1908, at which time the court discharged the writ on the ground that the appellants had no right to a change of venue, and had a right of appeal from any judgment the police judge might enter against them. From this order the present appeal was taken.

We think the court rightly refused to grant the writ on the second ground stated. The writ of prohibition under the statute lies to an inferior court only when that court is acting without or in excess of its jurisdiction, and there is no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law from the decision it renders or may render. It does not lie merely because the court decides erroneously, or acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction; but there must be no other remedy either by appeal or writ of review from its decision before the writ will lie. Here there is no question that the relators have a speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law from any judgment the police court may enter against them. The statutes relating to appeals and to writs of review are ample to secure a review in the higher tribunals of any judgment of an inferior court whose judgment may be reviewed under the restrictions imposed by the...