State v. Woodmansee
| Decision Date | 01 December 1896 |
| Citation | 19 R.I. 651,35 A. 961 |
| Parties | STATE v. WOODMANSEE. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Complaint against William A. Woodmansee for the neglect of the defendant to provide for the support of his wife. Prom a refusal to quash, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
James A. Williams, for complainant.
Clarke H. Johnson, for defendant.
This is a complaint under Gen. Laws R. I. c. 281, § 24, charging the respondent with neglect to provide according to his means for the support of his wife, Grace L. Woodmansee, by whom the complaint was made. Besides the offense charged in the warrant, section 24 enumerates, among others, the offenses of being idlers, sturdy beggars, vagrants, prostitutes, common drunkards, common cheats, common railers and brawlers. Section 25 of the same chapter provides that the agent of state charities and corrections, the chief of police, or overseer of the poor of any town, or such officer as the town council of any town of the city council of any city may appoint for the purpose, may make complaint against any persons for any of the offenses mentioned in section 24. The respondent moves to quash the complaint, because, as he contends, the authority to make complaint for the offenses specified in section 24 is exclusive, and hence that no person other than the agent of state charities and corrections, chief of police, or overseer of the poor of a town, or such officer as the town council of a town or the city council of a city may appoint for the purpose, can make complaint. In support of these contentions he urges that we find in section 24 a collection of offenses made such by statute, the prosecution of which requires the exercise of great care and discretion to prevent injustice; and he therefore argues that the prosecution of these offenses cannot be safely left to neighbor against neighbor or wife against husband, and that the officers of the law are named as public prosecutors to exclude as far as possible a misuse of the prosecuting power as to these offenses by individuals for their own purposes. We are not convinced by the argument that the authority to make complaint for the offenses in question was intended to be exclusive. We are of the opinion, rather, that the authority conferred on the officers of the law specified in section 25 was Intended to be additional or supplementary to that of private complainants, to make sure that complaint should be made if the public interests should require it, even though no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cronan ex rel. State v. Cronan
...chief of police or any other prosecuting officer." Id. Peabody, therefore, as well as the Court's previous decision in State v. Woodmansee, 19 R.I. 651, 35 A. 961 (1896), supports the conclusion that private misdemeanor prosecutions, initiated by complaints filed by a private citizen, long ......
-
State v. Porter
...should require it, even though no private person should be sufficiently interested to undertake the prosecution.” State v. Woodmansee, 19 R. I. 651, 35 A. 961. See, also, Commonwealth v. Gay, 153 Mass. 211, 26 N. E. 571, 852;People v. Stickle, 156 Mich. 557, 121 N. W. 497. The word “informa......
-
State v. Porter
...should require it, even though no private person should be sufficiently interested to undertake the prosecution." State v. Woodmansee, 19 R.I. 651 (35 A. 961). also, Commonwealth v. Gay, 153 Mass. 211 (26 N.E. 571); People v. Stickle, 156 Mich. 557 (121 N.W. 497). The word "information," un......
-
State v. Peabodt
...official authorized by section 25 of said chapter to make such complaint, 'gave surety for costs in the usual way. See State v. Woodmansee, 19 R. I. 651, 35 Atl. 961. The record further shows that the defendant was tried and convicted of said offense in the district court of the Third Judic......