Legal Opinion

In re Hall

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1862PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Habeas Corpus. The petition showed that, on a complaint being made before a justice of the peace under section 9 of the Prohibitory Liquor Law, petitioner was subpoenaed as a witness to lay the foundation for 2R-’ocess against the person complained of; that a question was put to him which he refused to answer; whereupon the justice issued his warrant, committing him to the common jail until he should submit to answer the question, and he discharged by due course of law.

Read the full summary

Habeas Corpus. The petition showed that, on a complaint being made before a justice of the peace under section 9 of the Prohibitory Liquor Law, petitioner was subpoenaed as a witness to lay the foundation for 2R-’ocess against the person complained of; that a question was put to him which he refused to answer; whereupon the justice issued his warrant, committing him to the common jail until he should submit to answer the question, and he discharged by due course of law. The j^tition further showed that on issuing this commitment all further proceedings on the complaint- were discontinued. The…

1Opinion of the Court

The Court

allowed them to be read, and ordered the petitioner discharged; holding that the Justice obtained no jurisdiction, because the complaint did not set forth facts and circumstances, and therefore there was nothing to authorize the examination of witnesses.

Manning J.

was of opinion that the commitment was correct, and that the witnesses subpoenaed to testify in such cases could not raise the question of the sufficiency of the complaint. But he concurred in discharging Hall on the ground that the proceedings before the Justice had become discontinued, and that the commitment would not…

2Cited by7 opinions

  1. Eastman v. DoleAppellate Court of Illinois · 1919
  2. Ex Parte JacksonCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1923
  3. United States v. CollinsDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1906
  4. Ex parte OverendCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  5. In re MeadMichigan Supreme Court · 1922

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API