People v. Williams

Michigan Supreme Court

People v. Williams

208 N.W. 457, 234 Mich. 361, 1926 Mich. LEXIS 583

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedApril 14, 1926

DocketDocket No. 138.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 208 N.W. 457 (People v. Williams) 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

People v. Williams, 208 N.W. 457, 234 Mich. 361, 1926 Mich. LEXIS 583 (Mich. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Clark, J.

The sheriff, at the owners’ request, and without warrant, -searched their premises, a small farm, on which there was a dwelling, then vacant, and an outbuilding, sometime used as a slaughter house. Defendant, aided by his son, -was found operating a still in the slaughter house. A quantity of mash was found in the dwelling. The sheriff seized the outfit, including a quantity of moonshine whisky, which, at the trial, was received in evidence over defendant’s objection, and against his motion to suppress and to discharge, timely made. .

On exceptions before sentence, defendant presents the substance of his objection, that the search and seizure were unlawful because made without a search warrant. The owners testified that they had not given defendant permission to go and to be upon the land. But defendant had testimony that the owners had given him permission to go upon the land and to do what he did do, and he contends that he had a right in the premises which the sheriff might not invade without warrant. If defendant’s testimony be given full credit, he was a mere licensee, he had a mere privilege to go upon the premises for a certain purpose. The license was not exclusive of the owners. 37 C. J. pp. 284-287. They might go upon the premises and into the buildings at any time. And they might invite another to go. They invited the sheriff. He was lawfully on the premises, in the dwelling, in the slaughter house. And being there he observed defendant committing a felony in his presence. It was the sheriff’s duty then to arrest the defendant and to seize the outfit, which he did. 24 *363 R. C. L. p. 723; People v. Chomis, 223 Mich. 289; People v. Woodward, 220 Mich. 511.

Other questions do not require discussion.

Affirmed, and judgment advised.

Bird, C. J., and Sharpe, Snow, Steere, Fellows, Wiest, and McDonald, JJ., concurred.

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

Clark, J.

The sheriff, at the owners’ request, and without warrant, -searched their premises, a small farm, on which there was a dwelling, then vacant, and an outbuilding, sometime used as a slaughter house. Defendant, aided by his son, -was found operating a still in the slaughter house. A quantity of mash was found in the dwelling. The sheriff seized the outfit, including a quantity of moonshine whisky, which, at the trial, was received in evidence over defendant’s objection, and against his motion to suppress and to discharge, timely made. .

On exceptions before sentence, defendant presents the substance of his objection, that the search and seizure were unlawful because made without a search warrant. The owners testified that they had not given defendant permission to go and to be upon the land. But defendant had testimony that the owners had given him permission to go upon the land and to do what he did do, and he contends that he had a right in the premises which the sheriff might not invade without warrant. If defendant’s testimony be given full credit, he was a mere licensee, he had a mere privilege to go upon the premises for a certain purpose. The license was not exclusive of the owners. 37 C. J. pp. 284-287. They might go upon the premises and into the buildings at any time. And they might invite another to go. They invited the sheriff. He was lawfully on the premises, in the dwelling, in the slaughter house. And being there he observed defendant committing a felony in his presence. It was the sheriff’s duty then to arrest the defendant and to seize the outfit, which he did. 24 *363 R. C. L. p. 723; People v. Chomis, 223 Mich. 289; People v. Woodward, 220 Mich. 511.

Other questions do not require discussion.

Affirmed, and judgment advised.

Bird, C. J., and Sharpe, Snow, Steere, Fellows, Wiest, and McDonald, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 N.W. 457, 234 Mich. 361, 1926 Mich. LEXIS 583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-williams-mich-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack