State ex rel. McGovern v. Williams

110 N.W. 1135, 130 Wis. 588, 1907 Wisc. LEXIS 309
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 29, 1907
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 110 N.W. 1135 (State ex rel. McGovern v. Williams) 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
State ex rel. McGovern v. Williams, 110 N.W. 1135, 130 Wis. 588, 1907 Wisc. LEXIS 309 (Wis. 1907).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an application for a peremptory writ of mandamus directed to Hon. Orren T. Williams, one of the circuit judges of Milwaukee county. It appears by the relation and the alternative writ which was issued thereon that Prank Keogh and Otis T. Hare were indicted for obtaining a certain county order by false pretenses, and that Judge Williams sustained separate demurrers to the indictment on the part of both the defendants on the ground that no offense was stated therein and discharged the defendants. Thereupon application was made to this court to exercise its power of superintending control by way of mandamus compelling Judge Williams to vacate said orders and reinstate the action and proceed with the trial thereof. An alternative writ having issued out of this court, the respondent moved to quash the same on the grounds, first, that the court is without jurisdiction, and, second, that the facts stated are not sufficient to entitle the relator to a writ of mandamus. The matter was fully argued during the January term, 1906, and a re-argument ordered, which has now been had. The six justices who participated in the hearing of both arguments are equally divided in opinion as to whether a peremptory writ should issue, and this has been the situation since the first argument took place. It is very apparent that no affirmative action in the matter [594]*594can be taken, and that any farther attempt in that direction would be a mere waste of time. In this situation it seems that the only action that can be taken is to dismiss the proceedings.

By the Court. — Proceedings dismissed, without costs.

Timlin, J., took no part.

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

Related

Scott Smith v. Greg Kleynerman
2017 WI 22 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2017)
State ex rel. Umbreit v. Helms
118 N.W. 158 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
110 N.W. 1135, 130 Wis. 588, 1907 Wisc. LEXIS 309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-mcgovern-v-williams-wis-1907.