¶1(concurring). I agree in affirmance, but not in the ground of decision. I think the decision amends sec. 4182, Stats. In my opinion the work of amending statutes should be left to the legislature. I reach the sáme conclusion in a different way. Sec. 3012m, Stats., forbids this court to reverse any judgment for any error in “procedure” unless it shall appear that the error complained of has affected the substantial rights of the party seeking to reverse the judgment. This section was adopted long after sec. 4782. The court which would hold the preliminary examination and the one which conducted the trial is the same. The court must necessarily have held on the motions made on the trial that an offense was committed and that there was probable cause to believe the defendant guilty. The defendant fails to show wherein he was prejudiced by failure to give him a preliminary examination, or how the result would have been different had such an examination been granted. I therefore think the error in procedure should not result in reversal, because its prejudicial character is not apparent.
158 Wis. 146
State v. Solomon
Decided October 6, 1914
Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1914-10-06
Reposted from tbe municipal court of Milwaukee county: A. 0. Bacxus, Judge. On October 31, 1912, on a warrant issued by tbe district court of Milwaukee county on a complaint charging him with obtaining in Milwaukee county $4.50 from one Andrew Jur-gensen by means of false pretenses, tbe defendant was arrested and was brought before tbe district court of said county for trial.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1914-10-06
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently December 1995
1 district · 9 state decisions
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 →