State v. Superior Court for King County

• Decision Date: 08 May 1914
• Docket Number: 11,921.
• Citation: 140 P. 555,79 Wash. 570
• Parties: STATE ex rel. BROWN, Justice of the Peace, v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR KING COUNTY et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

140 P. 555

79 Wash. 570

STATE ex rel. BROWN, Justice of the Peace, v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR KING COUNTY et al.

No. 11,921.

Supreme Court of Washington

May 8, 1914

Department 2. Writ of review, on the relation of Fred C. Brown, Justice of the Peace for Seattle Precinct, King County, against the Superior Court for King County, and A. W. Frater, as one of the judges thereof, to review the granting of a writ of prohibition. Affirmed.

Tucker & Hyland, of Seattle, for relator.

John F Murphy, of Seattle, for respondent.

MORRIS, J.

This writ calls for an interpretation of chapter 28, p. 71, Laws of 1913, known as the 'Lazy Husband' act. The relator is one of the justices of the peace for Seattle precinct. On October 14, 1913, a complaint was filed by Viola Mikkelson charging her husband, James Mikkelson, with willfully failing and neglecting to furnish support for his wife and minor children. Under this complaint James Mikkelson was taken into custody, and on the 20th of October a hearing was had upon the complaint, when the justice found the defendant guilty as charged, and sentenced him to imprisonment in the King county jail for the period of 182 days at hard labor, and further ordered that the defendant be placed at work upon the public roads or highways during the term of 182 days, and that the board of county commissioners pay to the wife $1.50 per day out of the general fund for the support of the said wife and children. A commitment was duly issued to the sheriff, and in pursuance of the judgment and the commitment, Mikkelson was placed at work upon the public highways. Subsequently and on February 21, 1914, the relator issued an order directed to the sheriff, commanding him to bring the body of James Mikkelson before him at his courtroom on the 25th day of February, 1914; whereupon the prosecuting attorney of King county sued out a writ of prohibition in the lower court, alleging in his petition, in substance, that the purpose and intent of the relator in ordering Mikkelson to be brought before him was to commute the unexpired jail sentence. The application for the writ coming on to be heard in the lower court, relator appeared and moved to quash, which motion was denied. Relator electing to stand upon his motion, final judgment granting the writ was entered. Relator now comes to this court seeking this writ to review the decision of the lower court in granting the writ of prohibition.

The application for the writ here suggests but one question: Did the relator have power to suspend or commute the sentence of James Mikkelson? Leaving out any question as to the validity of a statute attempting to confer upon justices of the peace the power to commute sentences, let us examine this statute to ascertain if such power can be inferred from its language. The act (Laws 1913, c. 28), so far as it is here material, is as follows:

'Sec. 2. In any case numerated in the previous section, the court may render one of the following orders:

'1st. Should a fine be imposed it may be directed by the court to be paid in whole or in part to the wife, or to the guardian, or to the custodian of the child or children, or to an individual appointed by the court as trustee. trustee.

'2nd. Before trial, or after conviction, with the consent of the defendant, the court, in its discretion, having regard to the circumstances and to the financial ability or earning capacity of the defendant, shall have the power to make an order, which shall be subject to change by it from time to time as circumstances may require, directing the defendant to pay a certain sum weekly during such time as the court may direct, to the wife or to the guardian, or custodian of the minor child or children, or to an

...