In re of Morton

On Habeas Corpus, where tlie petitioner is held by virtue of a commitment fair on its face, and charging him with contempt of court in refusing to give evidence, it is competent for him to go behind the commitment and show that the court committing him had no jurisdiction of the proceeding in which he was called as a witness. A complaint under §9 of the Prohibitory Liquor Law, [Comp. Z. §1667] which does not set forth any facts or circumstances, but merely states the belief of the complainant that the person complained of basP between certain specified days, sold liquors in violation of the act, is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the justice to whom it is made to issue subpoenas and compel the attendance of witnesses to testify concerning supposed violations. And, consequently, a witness attending on such a subpoena, and refusing to testify, cannot be committed for contempt of court in so refusing.

Habeas Corpus. The petition set forth, that on April 26th, .1862, the following complaint was made, and filed with W. W. Mitchell, a Justice of the Peace of Ionia county: ‘■'■State of Michigan, County of Ionia, ss.: Alexander F. Bell, being duly sworn, says, that he is a resident of the township of Ionia, in said county, and that he verily believes that Giles B. Conkey did, at the township of Ionia aforesaid, between the fifteenth day of April, 1862, and the twenty-sixth day of April, 1862, sell intoxicating liquors, in violation of an act entitled “An Act to prevent the Manufacture and Sale of Spirituous or Intoxicating Liquors as a beverage,” and that he is unable of his own knowledge to state sufficient facts and circumstances to authorize the issuing of a warrant. Alexander F. Bell. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 26th day of April, 1862. W. W. Mitchell, Justice of the Peace.” The petition further states, that thereupon the Justice issued a subpoena, commanding petitioner to aj>pear and give evidence touching said complaint; that he appeared in obedience thereto, and having been sworn, was asked the following question: Whether he knew of Giles Conkey having, at any time between the 13th and 26th days of April instant, himself directly or indirectly sold any spirituous or intoxicating liquors in the village of Ionia? Which question petitioner refused to answer; whereupon the justice proceeded to impose upon him a fine of ten dollars, and issued a warrant for his commitment to the county jail, until the fine should be paid, or until the expiration of thirty days. The imprisonment under this commitment was alleged to be illegal, for the reason, among- others, that the complaint was not sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the magistrate; and the whole proceeding was therefore void. The sheriff returned the commitment as his authority for the detention.