Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

10 Mich. 210

In re Hall

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1862

Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1862-05-15

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.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1862-05-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently January 1949

1 district · 6 state decisions

20186218701880189019001910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

The Court

¶1allowed 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.

¶2was 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 authorize an imprisonment when the prisoner could not have an opportunity to purge his contempt by answering.

¶3Prisoner discharged.

/10/mich/210 · .json · Public domain