In re Hall

10 Mich. 210, 1862 Mich. LEXIS 36
Michigan Supreme Court·Decided May 15, 1862·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

The Court

allowed 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.

was 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.

Prisoner discharged.

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

In re Hall, 10 Mich. 210, 1862 Mich. LEXIS 36 (Mich. 1862).

10 Mich. 210 (In re Hall) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Den Uyl
35 N.W.2d 467 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1949)
Ex Parte Jackson
253 S.W. 287 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1923)
In re Mead
190 N.W. 235 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1922)
Eastman v. Dole
213 Ill. App. 364 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1919)
Musgrove v. State
63 S.E. 538 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1909)
United States v. Collins
146 F. 553 (D. Oregon, 1906)
Ex parte Overend
54 P. 740 (California Supreme Court, 1898)