History
  • No items yet
midpage
People v. Wilson
246 Mich. 282
Mich.
1929
Check Treatment
Fead, J.

Defendant was convicted of violation of

the prohibition law. Thirty-three days after verdict he made a motion for a new trial. The statute, Act No. 175, Pub. Acts 1927, chap. 10, § 2, provides:

“Motions for new trials shall be made within 30 days after verdict, and not afterwards.”

The time is jurisdictional, and the motion came too late. Nichols v. Houghton Circuit Judge, 185 Mich. 654 (Ann. Cas. 1917 D, 100). Moreover, a proper exercise of judicial discretion would not have justified a new trial on the showing made by defendant.

It is contended that one of the jurors, Mrs. Alexander Lee, otherwise competent, was disqualified because her name did not appear on the assessment roll of her township (3 Comp. Laws 1915, § 12190), and the fact was not discovered until after trial. When drawn as a juror, she was not challenged for *284cause on that ground. The objection was waived. People v. Avery, 244 Mich. 644.

Judgment is affirmed.

Fellows, Wiest, Clark, McDonald, and Sharpe, JJ., concurred. North, C. J., and Potter, J., did not sit.

Case Details

Case Name: People v. Wilson
Court Name: Michigan Supreme Court
Date Published: Mar 29, 1929
Citation: 246 Mich. 282
Docket Number: Docket No. 153, Calendar No. 33,977
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.