Stone v. Conrad

• Decision Date: 07 April 1898
• Citation: 105 Iowa 21,74 N.W. 910
• Parties: STONE v. CONRAD, DISTRICT JUDGE, ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

105 Iowa 21

74 N.W. 910

STONE

v.CONRAD, DISTRICT JUDGE, ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

April 7, 1898.

There was an application to this court by plaintiff for a writ of certiorari commanding the defendants to certify up certain proceedings on their part, of which complaint was made. The writ issued, return was made thereto, and it is upon this record we are required to pass. Dismissed.James Nugent, for plaintiff.

James A. Howe, for defendants.

WATERMAN, J.

The facts, as they appear in the returns made by the defendants, are neither many nor complicated. On the 5th day of January, 1898, the plaintiff, J. W. Stone, shot and killed one Frank Kahler, in the city of Des Moines. On the 10th of that month the father of Stone, acting through an attorney, handed the clerk of the district court a written application, signed by himself, and duly verified, charging that said Stone was insane, and asking that the commissioners of insanity investigate and take action upon the case. Nothing further was done in the matter at this time. The next fact of consequence, in order of transpiring, was the finding and return of two indictments against Stone, charging him, respectively, with the crime of murder in the first degree, and assault with intent to commit murder. These indictments were returned by the grand jury on January 11, 1898, and immediately thereafter, on said day, warrants were issued thereon, and served upon Stone. After this the application to the commissioners of insanity was filed, and thereafter the board met, on the day last mentioned, and upon a suggestion of want of jurisdiction on its part, because of the fact that Stone was held under warrants issued on said indictments, nothing was done at this time in the matter. On January 12th the board again met to consider the case, and it was decided that, for want of jurisdiction, no action would be taken, and an order was so entered. On the same day, Stone was arraigned in the district court, and counsel appointed to defend him. It appearing that a reasonable doubt existed as to his sanity, a trial was had in said court, by jury (Hon. W. F. Conrad, J., presiding), to determine the matter, and a verdict was duly rendered declaring him to be insane. Whereupon the court ordered him to be confined in the department for the insane in the penitentiary at Anamosa, and that further proceedings against him on the indictments be suspended.

2. It is contended by counsel for petitioner that the district court had no jurisdiction to try the question of Stone's sanity, or to make any order as to his keeping; that the right to determine such matter and make such an order rested exclusively with the commissioners of insanity.

3. Motions are made, both on behalf of the commissioners of insanity and the district judge, to dismiss this proceeding. We need not set out the grounds on which the motions are based. We intend disposing of the controversy on its merits. The case, as presented, calls for a construction of statutes relating to the jurisdiction of different tribunals. Under the changed provisions of the present Code, to which we shall hereafter refer, conflicts like this here presented may often arise; and because of this we deem it best to overlooksome matters of form, and give a construction to the Code provisions involved.

4. Section 2279 of the Code provides: “On a written application made by any citizen, stating under oath, that a person confined in any prison within the county charged with a crime but not convicted thereof nor on trial therefor, is insane, the commissioners shall cause said prisoner to be brought before them and if they find that he is insane they shall direct his removal to, and detention in, one of the hospitals for the insane. * * *” Section 5540 of the Code also relates to the same subject-matter. It is as follows: “If a defendant appears in any stage of the trial of a criminal prosecution and a reasonable doubt exists as to his sanity, further proceedings must be suspended and a trial had upon that question.” Then follow provisions as to the method of trial, and the disposition to be made of the prisoner if found to be insane; it being provided that he shall be confined in the department for the criminal insane at Anamosa. The constitution (article 5, § 6) reads: “The district court shall be a court of law and equity which shall be distinct and separate jurisdictions and have jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters arising in their respective districts in such manner as shall be prescribed by law.” And in section 225 of the Code the general assembly has said: “The district court shall have general, original and exclusive jurisdiction of all actions, proceedings and...