The State ex rel. Kaiser v. Miller

• Citation: 289 S.W. 898,316 Mo. 372
• Decision Date: 31 December 1926
• Docket Number: 26992
• Parties: The State ex rel. Robert Kaiser, Chief of Detectives, v. Calvin N. Miller, Judge of St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

289 S.W. 898

316 Mo. 372

The State ex rel. Robert Kaiser, Chief of Detectives, v. Calvin N. Miller, Judge of St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction

No. 26992

Supreme Court of Missouri

December 31, 1926

Writ awarded.

Julius T. Muench and Oliver Senti for relator.

(1) In order for a magistrate to acquire jurisdiction to issue a fugitive-from-justice warrant, under Sec. 3939, R. S. 1919 it is absolutely essential that the person against whom the warrant is issued is within this State. State v Swope, 92 Mo. 399. (2) An order entered by a court against a person not a party to the proceeding and without process or notice, is a nullity. State ex rel. v Riley, 276 S.W. 881. (3) Where the jurisdiction of a circuit court has attached to the subject-matter, the St Louis Court of Criminal Correction is without authority to assume jurisdiction of the subject-matter. State ex rel. v. Williams, 221 Mo. 256; State ex rel. v. Board of Trustees, 268 Mo. 163. The St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction is a court of inferior jurisdiction. State ex rel. v. Murphy, 132 Mo. 382. (4) The jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Correction, in relation to money or other property found on the persons of offenders and taken from them, is limited to supervision over all officers connected with the court. Sec. 13850, R. S. 1919. The Court of Criminal Correction is a court of statutory origin, and can exercise only those powers conferred upon it by statute. There are no intendments in favor of its jurisdiction, and no matters are to be held within such jurisdiction except they expressly appear to be so. State v. Anderson, 191 Mo. 134; State ex rel. v. Murphy, 132 Mo. 382; Ex parte O'Brien, 127 Mo. 487. (5) There is no statutory authority for the Court of Criminal Correction ordering a police officer to deposit with the sheriff money taken from the prisoner to be held in evidence in a case which must be tried in another State. The Court of Criminal Correction depends upon the statutes for its jurisdiction, and, unless conferred by the statute, the court is without jurisdiction. State v. Anderson, 191 Mo. 134. (6) The jurisdiction of respondent over Weidemeyer to take the recognizance and forfeit the same did not confer upon respondent jurisdiction to make the order of October 30, 1925. That order had no relation to the bond forfeiture, but was made in connection with a fugitive-from-justice warrant issued while Weidemeyer was out of the State and never served upon him. (7) Because relator might have appealed, it does not follow that prohibition will not issue. State ex rel. v. Denton, 128 Mo.App. 304; State ex rel. v. Cline, 85 Mo.App. 625; State ex rel. Mueller v. Wurdeman, 232 S.W. 1002.

North T. Gentry, Attorney-General, and Howard Sidener, Circuit Attorney of St. Louis, for respondent.

(1) This court will take judicial notice of the fact that the St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction is a court of record of limited criminal jurisdiction, under the statutes, with power to conduct criminal examinations, and trials. Weidemeyer, alias Brooks, was duly arrested as a fugitive from justice and brought, by officers under relator, before respondent, sitting as judge of the Court of Criminal Correction, charged with being a fugitive from justice, and pending further inquiry by the court, said Weidemeyer was released by respondent on a common-law bond to appear on a day certain, and, subsequent to the release of said Weidemeyer, a fugitive warrant was issued by respondent, charging said Weidemeyer with being a fugitive from justice. Respondent contends that he is clothed with necessary jurisdiction and power under Sec. 3939, R. S. 1919. (2) Relator, in presenting the body of Weidemeyer before respondent for examination, failed to turn over the money and property taken from said Weidemeyer, to the court, and has ever since refused and denied the jurisdiction of respondent over the money and property of said Weidemeyer, and has thus obstructed, hindered and prevented respondent in the faithful performance of his sworn duty, as provided under Section 13850. (3) Relator, without any color of right or title, took from the person of said Weidemeyer, the money and personal property, that should have been surrendered in court with the body of said Weidemeyer, and has since refused on order of respondent to turn same over to the sheriff. It was the duty of relator to surrender the personal property, as well as the body of said Weidemeyer to the proper jurisdiction and control of the court, and his (relator's) failure and refusal to do so, nullifies the protective provisions of Section 13850. (4) Respondent respectfully suggests that if the conduct of relator herein is upheld, it is possible for offenders to escape justice by voluntarily turning evidence over to the arresting officers to be disposed of at their will and pleasure, with the result that the proper and impartial enforcement of the criminal law will become more and more difficult in this State.

Lindsay, C. Seddon, C., concurs.

OPINION

LINDSAY

This is an original proceeding by prohibition, brought by relator, as chief of detectives of the Metropolitan Police Department of the City of St. Louis, against respondent as judge of the St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction. The gist of the complaint of relator is that the respondent as such judge was about to commit relator for contempt of court because of his failure and refusal to turn over to the Sheriff of the City of St. Louis, a certain sum of money in the hands of relator, in compliance with an order to that effect previously made by respondent; and, the contention is that respondent is without jurisdiction either of the person of the relator, or of the subject-matter, and that prior to the making of said order the relator and the money had been made subject to the jurisdiction of the circuit court.

The substance of what is stated in the application for the writ, is as follows: On October 13, 1925, one John V. Weidemeyer, alias Brooks, was arrested by the police of said city, "on suspicion of being a fugitive from justice." There was found upon his person the sum of $ 15,293, which was seized, and is in the possession of relator, as an officer of said police department. On the day of his arrest, Weidemeyer was released on a bond in the sum of $ 5,000, described as a "common-law bond, returnable in the St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction, to answer any charge that might be placed against him." He failed to appear upon the return day, which, by the statement for respondent in opposition to the grant of the preliminary rule herein, was October 14, 1925; and, the petition of relator alleges that "said bond was thereupon forfeited by an order duly made and entered of record by said St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction."

On October 19, 1925, relator was served by the sheriff with a writ of garnishment issued out of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, in aid of attachment, attaching all moneys in relator's possession belonging to Weidemeyer, and summoning him to appear in the circuit court to answer interrogatories, in a civil suit instituted by one Hoffman against Weidemeyer.

On October 20, 1925, relator was again summoned as garnishee in another suit brought against Weidemeyer in the circuit court by one Fischer.

On October 23, 1925, a warrant was issued out of the Court of Criminal Correction, for the arrest of said Weidemeyer as a fugitive from justice. This warrant was never served upon Weidemeyer, and the allegation is that he had fled from the State of Missouri, and his whereabouts was unknown to the police department, the officials of the prosecuting attorney's office and of the Court of Criminal Correction, at the time said warrant was issued. It is alleged that said Weidemeyer was not charged with any offense against the laws of this State, or under any ordinance, or with any offense over which the Court of Criminal Correction had jurisdiction, or in the trial of which said money could be used as evidence.

On October 30, 1925, there was made and served upon relator an order of the St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction, which recited that such order was made upon information of the circuit attorney that there was in the possession of relator, in his official capacity, the sum of $ 15,293, the property of Weidemeyer, and that said money was necessary, relevant and competent evidence in the case of the State of Missouri v. Weidemeyer, a fugitive from justice. The order directed and required relator to deliver said money to the sheriff, as evidence in the cause aforesaid, and to be subject to the order of the Court of Criminal Correction, and the order required that the sheriff should hold said money as evidence until otherwise ordered by that court. It is alleged that this order was made without notice to the relator, and without jurisdiction by said court over relator or over the subject-matter.

On November 5, 1925, relator was summoned as garnishee in another attachment suit brought against Weidemeyer in the circuit court.

On November 10, 1925, relator, by counsel, entered his special appearance in the St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction, and sought by motion to have the above-mentioned order set aside. This motion was overruled. The relator alleges that prior to the making of the order just mentioned, jurisdiction of the circuit court had attached to the subject-matter of the order, and to the person of relator by reason of service upon him of the various writs of garnishment. The application further states that on January 9, 1926, relator was summoned as garnishee by the sheriff of the city of St. Louis to appear in the circuit court to answer interrogatories under a writ of fieri facias issued by the St. Louis Cour...