Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

of public works refused to recognize relator as a member, and he applied for a mandamus to compel such recognition.

Wilson & Cobb, for relator.

J. A. Parkinson, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Under the charter of the city of Jackson, a member of the common council cannot, by mandamus, compel his recognition as a member of the board of public works, when his petition fails to show his appointment by a vote of a majority of the common council, exclusive of his own vote.

JOHN ELDER AND ROBERT NIXON V. WILLIAM A. GARNER, SHERIFF OF GENESEE COUNTY.

Criminal law-Murder-Admission to bail-Jurisdiction

Mandamus.

1. A circuit court commissioner has power to admit to bail a respondent committed for trial upon a charge of murder in the first degree, except in cases where the proof is evident or the presumption great; citing How. Stat. § 9479.

2. Mandamus will not lie to compel a sheriff to bring a prisoner, committed for trial on a charge of murder, before a certain circuit court commissioner on his application to be admitted to bail, where the answer of the sheriff shows that he believes that the commissioner is disqualified to act in the premises, and that he has reasonable grounds for such belief; no issue being asked to try the question, and there being another circuit court commissioner and a circuit judge, residents of the same county, by either of whom it will be presumed that the relator may be admitted to bail.

Mandamus. Argued June 6, 1893. Denied June 8, 1893.

Relators, who were committed for trial upon a charge of murder, applied for mandamus to compel the respondent sheriff to bring them before a certain circuit court commissioner, to the end that they might be admitted to bail.

Gold & Johnson and J. M. Russell, for relator Elder. Durand & Carton, for relator Nixon.

George F. Brown, Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. A circuit court commissioner has power to admit to bail a respondent committed for trial upon a charge of murder in the first degree, except in cases where the proof is evident or the presumption great. How. Stat. § 9479.

In this case the answer shows that the commissioner is by the respondent believed to be disqualified from acting in the premises, and that respondent has reasonable grounds for such belief; and inasmuch as no issue was asked to try the question, and there appearing to be another commissioner and the circuit judge, both residents of said county, by either of whom it will be presumed that said relators may be admitted to bail, this Court will leave relators to such remedy, and will not interfere in this case by the discretionary writ of mandamus.

[ocr errors]

IN THE MATTER OF EDWARD REINHEIMER ON HABEAS

CORPUS.

Criminal law-Commitment-Discharge-Habeas corpus.

A respondent who has been discharged on habeas corpus for a defect in a commitment, issued by a justice of the peace on respondent's failure to comply with an order requiring him to furnish sureties to keep the peace, may be lawfully imprisoned under a second commitment in due form, issued by the same justice on the same order.

Habeas corpus proceedings. Heard June 6, 1893. Petitioner remanded June 8, 1893.

The petitioner was discharged on habeas corpus from imprisonment under a commitment issued by a justice of the peace on his failure to comply with an order to furnish sureties to keep the peace. The order of discharge was made without prejudice to the right of the justice to issue a second commitment, if he had the statutory right so to do; and, before the expiration of the 10 days allowed for appeal, the justice issued a second commitment, upon which petitioner was arrested and imprisoned. A second writ of habeas corpus was issued, and, upon a hearing, the circuit judge who discharged the petitioner on the former writ remanded him to jail, holding that the justice had authority to recommit in the same cause; and thereupon this application was made.

1. P. Zander and L. E. Bradt (L. C. Holden, of counsel), for petitioner.

A. A. Ellis, Attorney General, and E. A. Snow, Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

PER CURIAM. One committed upon a failure to com

[blocks in formation]

ply with an order to give security to keep the peace, discharged upon habeas corpus for a defect in the commitment, and subsequently arrested and imprisoned upon a second commitment, in due form, issued upon said order, is lawfully imprisoned, and will not be discharged upon habeas corpus. How. Stat. § 8594, subd. 1.

SAMUEL GIBSON, COMMISSIONER OF HIGHWAYS, AND MARK
B. MILLS, CLERK, OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MACON,
V. VICTOR H. LANE, CIRCUIT JUDGE OF

LENAWEE COUNTY.

Highways-Certiorari.

Mandamus will not lie to quash a writ of certiorari issued to review the proceedings of a highway commissioner in laying out a private road, there being an adequate remedy by appeal after the rendition of judgment in the circuit court.

Mandamus. Order to show cause denied June 13, 1893.

Relators applied for mandamus to compel the respondent to quash a writ of certiorari allowed by him, and issued from his court, to review the proceedings of relator Gibson, as highway commissioner, in laying out a private road.

James W. Wightman, for relator.

PER CURIAM.

Order to show cause is denied, for the reason that there is an adequate remedy by appeal after judgment in the circuit court.

THOMAS E. CHANDLER AND FRANKLIN TAYLOR V. C. J. PAILTHORP, PRESIDING AS CIRCUIT JUDGE

OF ANTRIM COUNTY.

[See 93 Mich. 383.]

Deposition-Mandamus.

Mandamus will not lie to compel a circuit judge to suppress a deposition taken in a chancery suit, but the question should be raised upon appeal.

Mandamus. Order to show cause denied June 13, 1893.

Relators applied for mandamus to compel the respondent to suppress certain depositions taken in the case of Drayton v. Chandler, reported in 93 Mich. 383, under an order of the lower court reopening the case for the purpose of taking testimony as to the value of the property covered by the chattel mortgage mentioned in the opinion in said

case.

Nelson C. Weter, for relators.

PER CURIAM. An order to show cause is denied. The question should be raised upon appeal.

« AnteriorContinuar »