Bachmann v. City of Milwaukee

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Bachmann v. City of Milwaukee

47 Wis. 435

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 15, 1879

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 47 Wis. 435 (Bachmann v. City of Milwaukee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bachmann v. City of Milwaukee, 47 Wis. 435 (Wis. 1879).

Pincite

Opinion

Ryan, C. J.

The affidavit to change the venue in each of these cases follows the statute, could not properly do otherwise, and is sufficient. The venue is to be changed, not upon the fact of the judge’s prejudice, but upon the imputation of it. Van Slyke v. Ins. Co., 39 Wis., 390. And the statute, as it now stands, appeals to the conscience of the party for a reasonable apprehension, not for the truth of the fact on which the apprehension rests. It goes upon a statement of belief, not of fact, save in so far as belief may be a fact; upon assertion that the party has reason to believe and does believe that he cannot receive a fair trial on account of the judge’s prejudice, not upon averment of the prejudice itself. Carpenter v. Shepardson, 48 Wis., 406.

It may be that perjury could not be well assigned on the affidavit. If so, the fault is in the statute, not in the affidavit which the statute prescribes. Certainly, an assignment of perjury could not be laid upon traverse of the fact of prejudice; and the brief of the learned counsel for the appellant is rather a criticism on the statute, than an argument of the insufficiency of the statutory affidavit to support the change of venue. „

By the Court. — The order appealed from in each of these cases is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ryan, C. J.

The affidavit to change the venue in each of these cases follows the statute, could not properly do otherwise, and is sufficient. The venue is to be changed, not upon the fact of the judge’s prejudice, but upon the imputation of it. Van Slyke v. Ins. Co., 39 Wis., 390. And the statute, as it now stands, appeals to the conscience of the party for a reasonable apprehension, not for the truth of the fact on which the apprehension rests. It goes upon a statement of belief, not of fact, save in so far as belief may be a fact; upon assertion that the party has reason to believe and does believe that he cannot receive a fair trial on account of the judge’s prejudice, not upon averment of the prejudice itself. Carpenter v. Shepardson, 48 Wis., 406.

It may be that perjury could not be well assigned on the affidavit. If so, the fault is in the statute, not in the affidavit which the statute prescribes. Certainly, an assignment of perjury could not be laid upon traverse of the fact of prejudice; and the brief of the learned counsel for the appellant is rather a criticism on the statute, than an argument of the insufficiency of the statutory affidavit to support the change of venue. „

By the Court. — The order appealed from in each of these cases is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 Wis. 435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bachmann-v-city-of-milwaukee-wis-1879.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack