In re Maguire

Michigan Supreme Court

In re Maguire

72 N.W. 15, 114 Mich. 80

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 16, 1897

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 72 N.W. 15 (In re Maguire) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Maguire, 72 N.W. 15, 114 Mich. 80 (Mich. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Moore, J.

Eugene Maguire, who was in jail in Calhoun county awaiting arraignment charged with the crime of arson, was said to be insane. The circuit judge caused an inquiry to be made in open court, in the presence of said Maguire, as to his sanity. The judge found he was insane, and entered an order releasing him from imprisonment in the county, and committing him to the Michigan asylum for the dangerous and criminal insane at Ionia, until restored to his right mind or otherwise discharged. He is now confined by virtue of such commitment. Mains & Cavanagh apply for the writ of habeas corpus, claiming that the statute authorizing the inquiry and commitment is unconstitutional and void, and that the proceedings before the circuit court were irregular and void. We think this case is ruled by the Case of Underwood, 30 Mich. 502, and the Case of [81]*81Coffeen, 38 Mich. 311. See 2 How. Stat. § 8575, subd. 2.

The writ is denied.

Grant, Montgomery, and Hooker, JJ., concurred. Long, C. J., did not sit.

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

Moore, J.

Eugene Maguire, who was in jail in Calhoun county awaiting arraignment charged with the crime of arson, was said to be insane. The circuit judge caused an inquiry to be made in open court, in the presence of said Maguire, as to his sanity. The judge found he was insane, and entered an order releasing him from imprisonment in the county, and committing him to the Michigan asylum for the dangerous and criminal insane at Ionia, until restored to his right mind or otherwise discharged. He is now confined by virtue of such commitment. Mains & Cavanagh apply for the writ of habeas corpus, claiming that the statute authorizing the inquiry and commitment is unconstitutional and void, and that the proceedings before the circuit court were irregular and void. We think this case is ruled by the Case of Underwood, 30 Mich. 502, and the Case of [81]*81Coffeen, 38 Mich. 311. See 2 How. Stat. § 8575, subd. 2.

The writ is denied.

Grant, Montgomery, and Hooker, JJ., concurred. Long, C. J., did not sit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 N.W. 15, 114 Mich. 80, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-maguire-mich-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack