State v. Stobie

• Decision Date: 26 February 1906
• Citation: State v. Stobie, 194 Mo. 14, 92 S.W. 191 (Mo. 1906)
• Parties: STATE ex rel. McNAMEE et al. v. STOBIE, Justice of the Peace, et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

92 S.W. 191

194 Mo. 14

STATE ex rel. McNAMEE et al. v. STOBIE, Justice of the Peace, et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

February 26, 1906.

1. CRIMINAL LAW—JUSTICES OF THE PEACE— WARRANTS—ISSUANCE—REQUISITES.

Rev. St. 1899, § 2750, provides that complaints subscribed and sworn to by any person to testify against the accused may be filed with any justice of the peace, and, if the justice is satisfied that the accused is about to escape, or has no known place of permanent residence or property in the county likely to restrain him from leaving for the offense charged, he shall immediately issue his warrant, and have the accused arrested and held until the prosecuting attorney shall have time to file an information. Held that, where a complaint was filed against members of the metropolitan police force of the city of St. Louis, having no place of permanent residence or property in the county, before a justice of St. Louis county for an act committed within such county, it was not necessary to the immediate issuance of a warrant for their arrest that the justice should be satisfied that they were about to escape.

2. SAME—DOCKET ENTRIES.

A justice of the peace is not required to execute any writing evidencing the necessity arising for the issuance of a warrant authorized by Rev. St. 1899, § 2750, either by entry in his docket, by indorsement on the warrant, or otherwise.

3. COURTS—JURISDICTION—DEFINITION.

Jurisdiction is authority to hear and determine a cause.

4. PROHIBITION—ACTS OF COURTS OR JUDGES— WANT OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION.

In order to entitle a litigant to a writ of prohibition, it must appear that, in the proceeding sought to be prohibited, either the court or judge is assuming to exercise and apply judicial power not granted by law, or, in a proceeding properly within its jurisdiction, that the court assumes to apply judicial force in excess of its power and authority.

5. SAME—DEFECTS IN PETITION OR COMPLAINT.

Where a court has jurisdiction of the class of cases to which the proceeding sought to be prohibited belongs, and acquires jurisdiction of the subject-matter, the mere fact that the petition or complaint by which the proceeding was inaugurated is defective is not ground for a writ of prohibition.

6. SAME.

A writ of prohibition cannot be issued to supply the place of an appeal, writ of error, of certiorari.

7. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS—CHARTERS—POLICE OFFICERS—POWERS.

The police system of the city of St. Louis being a subject of state legislation, and the General Assembly having created such system, as well as the offices connected with it, and having defined the powers and duties of the officers, it was not within the power of the framers of the scheme and charter of St. Louis to vest such officers with powers inconsistent with the general laws of the state creating such police system.

8. SAME—AUTHORITY OF POLICE OUTSIDE OF CITY—STATUTES.

Sess. Acts 1860-61, p. 446, created a police system for the city of St. Louis, section 5 (page 448) of which provided that the police board should at all times of the day and night, within the boundaries of the city of St. Louis, preserve the public peace, etc., and that any person whom they had reason to believe, "within the city," intended to commit any breach beyond the city limits, and any person charged with the commission of crime "in the city," and against whom criminal process shall have issued, might be arrested on the same in any part of the state by the police force created by such act. Acts 1867, p. 178, § 3, provided that the board of police commissioners of the city should appoint and equip a certain number of

policemen for duty in the outskirts and open portions of the city, and "elsewhere in the city and county of St. Louis." Thereafter, St. Louis city charter was enacted, section 14 of which declared that the metropolitan police of the city of St. Louis should have the same power and jurisdiction in the county of St. Louis as constituted by the scheme, "as now provided by law"; provided that certain policemen might be equipped for duty in the county (Rev. St. 1899, p. 2467). Thereafter the act of 1861, as amended by Acts 1867 and supplemental acts, was repealed by Acts 1899, p. 53, section 5 of which was substantially a reenactment of section 5 of the act of 1861, and authorized the police boards to appoint and equip policemen deemed necessary for duty in the parks, outskirts, and such other portions of the city as the board might deem necessary. Held, that members of the police force of the city of St. Louis had no jurisdiction to arrest offenders outside the city limits for offenses committed in St. Louis county.

9. PROHIBITION—GROUNDS.

Where members of the metropolitan police force of the city of St. Louis had no jurisdiction to arrest offenders outside the city for violating the gaming laws of the state, in St. Louis county, the fact that members of such police force, forcibly entering the grounds of a racing association in such county outside the city limits for the purpose of effecting such arrest, had authority to so act in their capacity as private citizens, was no ground for the issuance of a writ of prohibition prohibiting a justice of the peace from assuming jurisdiction of a prosecution of such policemen for forcibly entering the racing association's inclosure.

10. SAME—PURPOSE OF PROSECUTION.

Where certain policemen were arrested for forcibly entering the close of a racing association outside the limits of their jurisdiction, for the purpose of arresting certain gamblers, the fact that the criminal charge against such policemen was solely for the purpose of hindering, impeding, and obstructing them in the performance of their duty as policemen and as officers and citizens of the state, and to protect from arrest the persons engaged at the race track in violating the law, was no ground for the issuance of prohibition to restrain the further prosecution of the proceedings against such officers.

Marshall and Valliant, JJ., dissenting.

In Banc. Application for writ of prohibition, on relation of George T. McNamee and others, against Frank Stobie, justice of the peace of Central township, St. Louis county, and others. Writ denied.

This is an original proceeding in this court. It is a petition or application by relators addressed to this court asking for the issuance of a writ of prohibition. The petition was filed by the relators on July 28, 1905, and the grounds for relief and the particular relief sought are thus plainly stated:

"Come now the relators herein, George T. McNamee, Patrick McKenna, Con Meehan, Patrick Kirk, Henry Meyer, Sydney Sears, John Kavanaugh, John McCarthy, Timothy Danaher, George Williams, Thomas Kelly, Frank McKenna, Gratiot Cabbanne, R. L. Killian, Hugh McFarland, James Burke, George Greely, Charles Madsen, and James Hunt, and give the court to understand and be informed that said relators are now, and were at all times hereinafter mentioned, citizens of the state of Missouri and residents of the city of St. Louis therein; that said relator George T. McNamee is now, and was at all of said times, a captain, the relator Patrick McKenna, a lieutenant, and each of the other relators a member of the metropolitan police force of the city of St. Louis, duly appointed, commissioned, and qualified as such, and are now officers of the state of Missouri; that respondent Frank Stobie was then, and still is, an acting justice of the peace of Central township of St. Louis county, in the state of Missouri, and Fred Lenz, constable of said township. Relators further give the court to understand and be informed:

"That Hon. Joseph W. Folk, Governor of the state of Missouri, by virtue of the authority vested in him by the Constitution and laws of the state of Missouri, on the 21st day of July, 1905, issued and delivered to Hon. A. C. Stewart, president of the board of police commissioners of said city of St. Louis, a communication in words and figures as follows, to wit: `Office of the Governor, State of Missouri, City of Jefferson, July 21, 1905. Hon. A. C. Stewart, President Board of Police Commissioners, St. Louis, Mo.— Dear Sir: Information having come to me that a state of lawlessness exists in St. Louis county; that men backed by millions of wealth and political influence are openly committing felonies by registering bets on horse races; that dramshop keepers in flagrant defiance of the statutes keep their places open on Sunday; that men are openly held up and robbed in the orgies and the general debauchery following the violations of this law; that gamblers ply their trade uninterrupted and scoff at the authority of the state; that the laws of the state are nullified and the statutes of the state trampled in the dust, and the honor of the state assailed without interference or hindrance; and that the local officials either cannot or will not uphold the laws there: Whereas, such conditions cannot be tolerated in Missouri; and, whereas, it is the sworn duty of the executive to execute the laws of the state; and, whereas, the metropolitan police force of the city of St. Louis is by the scheme separating the city and county, which was voted upon by the people of the whole county in accordance with the Constitution, given the same jurisdiction in the county as in the city; and, whereas, the Governor, as the supreme conservator of the peace throughout the state, has the right to call on the metropolitan police force, as a part of the military arm of the state, to preserve peace and order and suppress outlawry: Now, therefore, in order to maintain the peace and dignity of the state and to preserve the majesty of the laws of the state, you are hereby directed to instruct the chief of police of the city of St. Louis to detail fifty officers or more for duty in St. Louis county, with orders to proceed, with all convenient speed, to Delmar race track in said county of St. Louis, and there arrest any and all...