Decisions Under The Liquor Law

Dotroit Post Report. Laxsino, July 10, 1874. Pïoceediogs very materiaily varying the usual monotonyof theSuprerue Court have been going on hem tbe last two days. Two men just Ireeh from iinprionment have been before tbe oourt u writs of hulp-im corjnit- ona was dischargod, the ether reinanded. Uudoubtedly both were equally iunocuut or guilty, since both have been adjudged by otber tribunali guilty of the tbird violntion of tlie liquor luw. With this question, liowever, the oourt have nothing whatever to do only to inquire whether they were held by due proces of luw. The two canes are au fblltfws IH RE. 9OEKEN8OIT. Application for writ ot' habeax corptii. The petitiouer, John Sorrenson, was convicted óf a tbird violation of the Prohibitory Liquor law in the city of Manutee, and therefor genteneed to pay a fine of $100 and to be conflned for six months in the Detroit House of Correction. The petitioner was produced in court, to-day, in answer to the writ, and, after argument by counsel, he was discharged from custody, the court announcing it as its opinión that since these proceedings before the justice were in their forui civil, and not criminal, they did not authorize a sentence to imprisonment in the House of Correction, under Compiled Laws, 3133, aulhorizing imprisonment therein under certain circumstances of any person convicted of any crime or misdemeanor not puuishable by imprisonment in tbe State Prison. Section 7304, Compiled Laws, forbids the conflnement in the same room of persons arrested on civil and criminal process. The petitioner was ordered discharged. IW RE BUDDIJTGTOÏT. Application for writ of habeas corpus. Baddington was held under a mütimus for three months, from a justice of the peace, upon an alleged conviction for a third offense under the liquor law. Application had been made to a Circuit Court Commissioner for a discharge on the same statement of facts set forth in the application to this court. The comniissioner had refused and remanded the prisoner to custody. The points urged in the argument for the discharge of the prisoner iu this court were, that the commitment was invalid because it does not shuw that the conviction was the third conviction of the prisoner for a similar offense, and that the justice had no jurisdiction to try and sentence a party charged with having committed a third offense under the act in question for the reason that the sentence provided for such offense exceeds his general criminal jurisdiction. The Attorney-General claimed that the hearing and determination before the commissioner was a bar to this proceeding. The court rendered an oral opinión in substance as follows : Proceedings under the Prohibitory Liquor law are not strictiy criminal ; the act stands by itself, and relates to a special proceeding ; and the statutory limitation upon the general criminal jurisdiction of the justice does not opérate here. The Legislature can confer a jurisdiction which does not infringe on the constitution, and could regúlate the extent of the punishment to be inflicted under the special croceedine-s. The objeetion that the sentence is unauthorized because the mittimua does not show that the prisoner had been twice convicted of a similar offense is not well taken. The word " offense " in the statute means an offense legally asoertained ; 30 that " third offense " is equivalent to "third conviction," and the justice cannot be required to be more technicallv correct in bis use of terms than the statute. The proceedings before the commis8ioner are no bar to these proceedings. Uuder our constitution a Circuit Court commissioner has no authority to issue a writ of habeos cwpux whero the inquiry conteinplates their view of the proceedings of a judicial tribunal ; since this involves the use of judicial power in its strict sense, which can be conferred only on courts, and would, in effect, confer appellate jurisdiction. Whether the statute authorizing the issue of writ of habens corpus by commissioners conflicts with the constitution is not an open question ; the two must be construed together. Nor is the question of the authority of circuit judges to hear proceedings on habeas corpus ' while not holding regular session of court involved ; since then the whole power of the court is conferred on the judge, it is questionable whether he has not authority to act in the premises as well at other times as in open court. The prisoner is remanded into custody.