Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

119 Wis. 563

Holz v. Rediske

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided November 17, 1903

Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1903-11-17

Halsey, Circuit Judge. This is an action of certiorari brought to reverse the judgment of a justice of the peace.

Relies on Holz v. Rediske · Brosde v. Sanderson

Reversed · Decided 1903-11-17

Winslow, J.

¶1Tbe sole question is whether tbe record of tbe justice shows that tbe judgment of tbe justice was rendered without jurisdiction. That be lost jurisdiction by tbe adjournment of October 26th is res adjudicaba as between these parties. Holz v. Rediske, 116 Wis. 353, 92 N. W. 1105. Tbe question is whether tbe docket shows that jurisdiction was regained by tbe appearance of Holzon tbe 2d of November. If this appearance was voluntary, jurisdiction was regained; if involuntary, it was not regained. Brosde *565v. Sanderson, 86 Wis. 368, 57 N. W. 49. Holzbad given no bond for bis appearance on tbe last-named day, bence tbe principle laid down in tbe last-named case does not apply; bnt it is claimed that, because be bad been arrested and brought into court by attachment, bis subsequent appearance must be considered involuntary. If it appeared that bis entry into court under arrest was tbe sole fact upon which tbe entry of bis appearance was predicated, this position would doubtless be correct; but tbe justice’s docket, which must be taken as true, does not, in our judgment, show this fact. It is true that it shows that Holzwas arrested and brought into court, but it then states that be appeared in tbe action and asked for a continuance, which was granted. There is nothing which shows -that either tbe appearance or motion for continuance was coerced. On tbe contrary, tbe only reasonable inference from the statements of the docket is that they were voluntary acts. Tbe fact that Holzwas under arrest did not prevent him from voluntarily appearing if be chose to do so. It must therefore be held that tbe docket shows that jurisdiction was regained by tbe voluntary appearance.

¶2It is said that jurisdiction was lost by reason of tbe failure to try tbe case by jury after demand bad been made for tbe jury trial, but, as this ground was not alleged in tbe petition for tbe writ and is urged for tbe first time in this court, it will not be considered.

¶3By the Court. — Judgment reversed, and action remanded with directions to affirm tbe judgment of tbe justice.

/119/wis/563 · .json · Public domain