History
  • No items yet
midpage
In re Hall
10 Mich. 210
Mich.
1862
Check Treatment
The Court

allowed them to be read, and ordered the petitioner discharged; holding that the Justice obtained no jurisdiction, because the complaint did not set forth facts and circumstances, and therefore there was nothing to authorize the examination of witnesses.

Manning J.

was of opinion that the commitment was correct, and that the witnesses subpoenaed to testify in such cases could not raise the question of the sufficiency of the complaint. But he concurred in discharging Hall on the ground that the proceedings before the Justice had become discontinued, and that the commitment would not authorize an imprisonment when the prisoner could not have an opportunity to purge his contempt by answering.

Prisoner discharged.

Case Details

Case Name: In re Hall
Court Name: Michigan Supreme Court
Date Published: May 15, 1862
Citation: 10 Mich. 210
Court Abbreviation: Mich.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.