Yager v. State ex rel. Robinson
| Decision Date | 17 May 1921 |
| Docket Number | 23,586 |
| Citation | 131 N.E. 42,190 Ind. 550 |
| Parties | Yager, Mayor v. State of Indiana, ex rel. Robinson |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From Adams Circuit Court; David E. Smith, Judge.
Action by the State of Indiana, on the relation of Darius Robinson against Charles W. Yager, mayor of the city of Decatur. From a judgment for relator, the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
L. C DeVoss, E. Burt Lenhart and Henry B. Heller, for appellant.
R. C Parrish, for appellee.
This was an action of mandamus to compel the appellant, as mayor of the city of Decatur, Indiana, to grant an appeal to the circuit court of Adams county from a judgment of his court convicting appellant's relator of a misdemeanor on his plea of guilty, and to certify a proper transcript of the proceedings to the circuit court.
The complaint alleged that the relator pleaded guilty in the court of the defendant mayor to a charge of unlawfully giving intoxicating liquor to a person named, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $ 100 and to be imprisoned in the county jail for thirty days; that appellant was the duly elected, qualified and acting mayor of said city, and had jurisdiction of the cause of action and of the parties; that on the fourth day after the judgment was rendered the relator filed with the appellant, as mayor, a good, sufficient and solvent appeal bond, and prayed an appeal to the circuit court of said county, but that appellant refuses to grant the appeal, or to make out or certify a transcript of the proceedings in said matter before him, and denies that the relator has any right to appeal. This complaint was filed on the day of the alleged refusal to grant an appeal, being the fourth day after the judgment of conviction was rendered. A demurrer on the alleged ground that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action was filed by the appellant, but was overruled, and upon appellant's failure to plead further the court rendered final judgment against him, commanding him to file the transcript for an appeal. From this judgment he duly perfected a term appeal to the Supreme Court. The only error properly assigned is overruling the demurrer to the complaint.
Aside from some objections to the complaint that are without merit and do not require comment, the memorandum filed with the demurrer and the brief of appellant present for decision only the questions (1) whether a defendant who has pleaded guilty in a city court to a charge of having committed a public offense can appeal from the judgment of that court entered upon such plea, and (2) whether mandamus will lie to compel the mayor to grant such appeal and to certify a proper transcript, in case he refuses to do so.
The judge of a city court, and the mayor when he presides as city judge, has the powers and jurisdiction of a justice of the peace, except that he has exclusive jurisdiction of all violations of city ordinances, and that his jurisdiction in criminal cases extends to petit larceny and all misdemeanors where the penalty cannot exceed a fine of $ 500 and imprisonment in the jail or workhouse for six months. § 8842 Burns 1914, Acts 1905 p. 219, § 216.
That mandamus will lie to compel a justice of the peace to grant an appeal and certify the transcript to the circuit court in case he refuses to do so on demand of a party entitled to have it done, is not open to doubt. State, ex rel. v. Cressinger (1883), 88 Ind. 499; Coats v. State, ex rel. (1892), 133 Ind. 36, 32 N.E. 737. And the same rule applies where the mayor...
To continue reading
Request your trial