Latimer v. Woodward

On complaint of forcible entry and detainer, made before two justices of the peace under R. S. 1838, p. 490, ch. 5, a warrant and venire were issued and served, and, on the return day, the parties and. most of the jurors summoned appeared: the cause was then adjourned to a future day, and the justices thereupon issued another venire by which a second jury was summoned, before whom the cause was tried t Held, that the justices had no power to direct the second jury to be summoned; but should have required the jurors who appeared in obedience to the first venire, to appear on the adjourned day of the cause; and if their number was insufficient to complete the panel, the deficiency should have been supplied by the summoning of additional jurors by virtue of the same venire. The evidence to sustain a complaint, under R. S. 1838, p. 490, ch. 5, $ 2, for unlawful and forcible entry and detainer of premises, must show force or violence in. making the entry, as well as the subsequent detention.

Certiorari to two justices of the peace of Lenawee county. This was a proceeding under the statute of forcible entry and detainer. R. S. 1838, p. 490, Ch. 5. Woodward made complaint before the justices, alledging that, on December 6, 1845, he was the owner, and in the lawful and peaceable possession of a certain warehouse and lot in Tecumseh, and that on that day Latimer and Freese made an unlawful and forcible entry into said ware-house, and detained the same with strong hand from the possession of the complainant. Thereupon, the justices issued a warrant for the arrest of the defendants below, returnable on the 16th December, 1845 ; and a venire for a jury was also issued, returnable on that day. Both the warrant and venire were served, and, on the return day, the parties, and most of the jurors summoned, appeared. The defendants below plead the general issue, and, on their application, the cause was adjourned until the 26th of December. On the 19th of December, the justices issued a second venire, which was likewise duly served and returned. By virtue of this second venire, some of the jurors sumoned on the first, were re-summoned, but others were omitted, and other persons summon-in their stead. The parties again appeared on the return day, and, the jury being called, the defendant below moved to set aside the panel of jurors, on the ground that the justices had no power to issue the second venire. This motion was denied by the justices and the cause proceeded to trial. It appeared from the evidence adduced on the trial, that Woodward was in possession of the premises in question, on the 6th December, 1845, and had been for several months previously, under a deed from Latimer; that on that day, and while Woodward was absent, Freese entered the ware-house, and asked for, and obtained the key, of the outer door, from one Brown, who was there, and in possession of the key, with the knowledge and assent of Woodward ; that Freese then proceeded to nail down the windows, after which all present, including Brown, went out of the ware-house, and Freese locked the door; that Brown then requested Freese to return the key, but this the latter refused to do; that after-wards, on the same day, Woodward came to the warehouse and endeavored to get in, but found the door locked, and was told by a man inside, who was in the employ of Freese, that he would not be permitted to enter the building; whereupon Woodward made a breach in the door by knocking out one of the panels, through which he went in, and directed the man to give him the key, and then leave the building, but the man refused to do either; that a scuffle ensued, in which Woodward attemed to put the man out, but without success; that he then went away, and soon afterwards the defendants below both came into the ware-house; that Woodward then returned, and requested of them (they being inside of the building) to open the door, but Latimer told him- he could not come in, and he was kept out. Upon this evidence as to the entry and detainer, the jury found a verdit of guilty, and judgment of restitution and for costs was afterwards rendered in favor of Woodward, and a fine of one dollar imposed on the defendants below. The certiorari was sued out by the defendants below, to reverse this judgment.