Thе respondent was tried in the recorder’s court of the city of Detroit, charged with fraudulently removing, embezzling, and concealing chattel-mortgaged prоperty, under Act No. 18, Laws of 1889, and convicted, and sentenced to the Detroit House of Correction for one year. The case is brought here on the record without exceptions, and the errors assigned relate to the insufficiency of the information.
The statute under which the prosecution is brought reads as follows:
“If any person who shall have made or executed any mortgage, or conveyance intended to operate as a mortgagе, of goods and chattels shall fraudulently embezzle, remove, conceal, or dispose of any such goods or chattels mortgaged or conveyed as aforesaid, with intent to injure or defraud the mortgagee or assignee of said mortgage or conveyance, which shall be of the value of twenty-fivе dollars or more, he shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment in the State prison not more than twо years, or by fine not more than two hundred and fifty dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail not more than six months. If the property embezzled, removed, conceаled, or disposed of as aforesaid shall not be of the value of twenty-five dollars, the person thus offending shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and bе punished by fine not exceeding one hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding three months, or both, in the discretion of the court.”
The information upon which the' respondent was convicted and sentenced is as follows:
*116 “State or Michigan, “County of Wayne, “City of Detroit, ss,
“ The Recorder’s Court of the City of Detroit.
“In the name of the people of the State of Michigan, James V. D. Willcox,_ prosecuting attorney in and for the said county of Wayne, who prosecutes for and on behalf of the people of said State in said court, comes now here in said court, in the July term thereof, A. D. 1890, and gives the said court here to understand and be informed that Samuel Schultz, alias Smith, late of said city of Detroit, heretofore, to wit, on the 12th day of April,- in A. D. 1890, at the said city of Detroit, in the county aforesaid, did make and execute a certain instrumént intended to operate as a chattel mortgage on the following goods and chattels, to wit, one new three-spring wagon, with top, of the value of one hundred dollars; that аfterwards, to wit, on the fourteenth day of April, A. D. 1890, the said Samuel Schultz, alias Smith, fraudulently did remove, embezzle, and conceal the said property, goods, and chattels aforesaid, with intent to injure and defraud Charles Eohde of the same, contrary to the form of the statute,” etc.
It is contended by counsel for the respondent that the information is insufficient to sustain the conviction,—
The information is very loosely drawn, аnd, had objection been made to its sufficiency before the jury was impaneled, the court would have been justified in quashing it, or in allowing such amendment as would hаve
“ Every objection to any indictment for any formal defect apparent on the face thereof shall be tаken by demurrer or motion to quash such indictment before the jury shall be sworn, and not afterwards.”
The defects complained of, so far as they exist in this information, could have been cured by amendment, as they are merely formal, had the attention of the trial court been called to the defects, by motion to quаsh, before trial. It is now too late for the respondent to take advantage of these defects.
The court had jurisdiction of the person and subject-matter in controversy, and the mere omission to state in the information that the goods were concealed and embezzled. etc., at the city of Dеtroit is not fatal. It is alleged.in the information that the mortgage was executed by respondent in the city of Detroit on April 12, A. D. 1890, and that on April 14, 1890, the respondent fraudulently did remove, embezzle, and conceal the same, etc. It is provided by How. Stat. § 9533, that—
“It shall not be necessary to state any venue in the body of any indictment; ,but the county, city, or other jurisdiction named in the margin thereof shall be taken to be the venue for all the facts stated in the body of such indictment: Provided, that, in case where a local description is or hereafter shall be required, such local description shall be given in the body of the indictment.”
Here the only сlaim is that the recorder’s court has no jurisdiction because it is not alleged that the offense of
Under the second point of respondent’s counsel it may be said that, had the question been raised before plea, the information would have been propеrly amended, under How. Stat. § 9537, which provides that—
“Any court of record in which the trial of an indictment is had may forthwith allow amendment, in case of' variance betwеen the statement in the indictment on which the trial is had and the proof, in the following cases: In the names of any county or place stated in the iiidictment, in thе name or description of any person or body stated to be the owner of any property which is the subject of the offense charged or alleged to have, been injured by the commission of the offense.”
It is sufficient to say of the third point raised that the information does allege the value of the рroperty mortgaged. It is contended by counsel for the respondent that the statute under which the prosecution is had cannot be construed that the vаlue of the property removed, etc., fixes and determines the jurisdiction of' the court in which the prosecution is to be had, but that, the true intent and meaning of the statute is the value of the mortgagee’s interest in such property. We think the statute cannot be given this construction. It is plain and unambiguous in its terms, and provides a penalty beyond the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace-
There is no claim but that the defendant had a fair and impartial trial on the merits, if the information was sufficient to sustain the conviction. While the information, as we have said, is very loosely drawn, we are satisfied that the court had jurisdiction, and the information must be held sufficient.
The judgment must be affirmed.