Stoltman v. Town of Lake

• Decision Date: 14 March 1905
• Parties: STOLTMAN v. TOWN OF LAKE.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

124 Wis. 462

102 N.W. 920

STOLTMAN

v.TOWN OF LAKE.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

March 14, 1905.

Error to Municipal Court of Milwaukee County; A. C. Brazee, Judge.

Joseph Stoltman was convicted of violation of a resolution of the board of health of the town of Lake, in Milwaukee county, and he brings error. Reversed.

Plaintiff in error was convicted of having violated an ordinance or resolution of the board of health of the town of Lake prohibiting the bringing of any garbage, offal, night soil, refuse, dead dogs, dead horses, or the dead carcasses of other animals, except as may be designated for human food, for the purposes of burying, deposit, disposal, consumption or any other purpose, into the town of Lake, and providing that any violation thereof, should be punishable under section 4608, Rev. St. 1898. The proceedings at first were before a justice of the peace of the town of Lake in Milwaukee county, Wis.

The judgment of the justice was appealed to the municipal court for Milwaukee county. Upon the hearing there it was shown that the board of health of the town of Lake in form adopted the regulation alleged to have been violated, pursuant to section 1411, Rev. St. 1898. It was further shown that plaintiff in error violated said regulation. Thereupon he was in due form convicted, and upon such conviction was sentenced to pay a fine of $5, and costs, and in default thereof to be imprisoned in the house of correction not exceeding 30 days. The sentence was imposed under section 4608, Rev. St. 1898.J. M. Clarke, for plaintiff in error.

Boden & Beuscher, for defendant in error.

MARSHALL, J. (after stating the facts).

Whether the health regulation plaintiff in error was convicted of having violated is valid under the rules laid down in State ex rel. Adams v. Burdge, 95 Wis. 390, 70 N. W. 347, 37 L. R. A. 157, 60 Am. St. Rep. 123, we need not determine, since there is another question involved in the appeal, the proper solution of which, it seems, is fatal to the judgment of the municipal court.

It is conceded, as the fact is, that unless the regulation is an ordinance within the meaning of chapter 388, p. 613, Laws 1903, the justice usurped authority in exercising jurisdiction in this matter. By section 5, c. 218, p. 359, Laws 1899, the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace of Milwaukee county to try and determine criminal actions was taken away and vested in the district court. This is the language in that regard:

“Said district court shall have exclusive jurisdiction * * * to hear, try and determine all charges or offences arising within said county of Milwaukee, the punishment whereof does not exceed one year's imprisonment in the state prison or county jail or a fine of five hundred dollars, or both such fine and imprisonment; to hear, try and determine all charges for misdemeanors arising within said county, otherwise triable before a justice of the peace.”

By section 1, c. 70, p. 89, Laws 1901, and chapter 388, p. 613, Laws 1903, that was amended by adding these words:

“Nothing herein contained shall be construed to deprive any justice of the peace of any town, or any city or village justice in any incorporated city or village in Milwaukee county, except only the city of Milwaukee, of jurisdiction to hear, try and determine complaints for the violation of any ordinance of any such town, city or village.”

Thus it may be seen that the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace of Milwaukee county, outside of the city of Milwaukee, was by legislative construction made certain as to violations of municipal ordinances of his town, city or village, and the exclusive trial jurisdiction of the district court was likewise made clear as to criminal offenses committed in said county, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison or county jail not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding $500, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

It...