Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

provide that policemen shall bave authority to not be liable, although, as a matter of fact, the arrest, without warrant, all persons who shall, plaintiff was in the streets for a legal purpose." in their presence, be guilty of any offense, mis- In order to better understand the force and demeanor or breach of the peace, or who sball, effect of this charge, it will be necessary to con. in their presence, be guilty of any disorderly sider the evidence to some extent that the court conduct, for punishment of wbich a warrant permitted the defendant to introduce. While could lawfully issue. Disorderly conduct for the plaintiff was on the stand as a witness in which an arrest might be made without a war- her direct case, the counsel for the defendant rant, if committed in the presence of the offi- was permitted, under objection of plaintiff's cer, would include what is commonly termed counsel, to ask her: “Your husband had you 'street walking.' That is the offense of a com- arrested the other day for assault and battery?. mon prostitute offering berself for sale upon It appears that this arrest was made after the the streets at upusual or unreasonable bours, time the assault was claimed to have been made endeavoring to induce men to follow her for in the present case, and the witness testified that the purpose of prostitution; and, in case such she had never been arrested in her life, until an offense is committed in the presence of an the time when the defendant arrested her. In officer, a policeman has not only the authority, answer to the question propounded, she stated but it is also made bis duty, to arrest the per that her husband did cause her arrest for assault son so offending. So, in order to determine and battery. Witness was further asked if, whether the defendant bad the right to make upon one occasion, Officers Warren and Verthe arrest complained of in this case it will be berg did not call upon her one night, and find necessary for you to inquire and determine her in bed with one Charles Vose. Plaintiff whether the plaintiff was at the time of the ar- denied this, and claimed that she had a room rest engaged in the commission of any offense, there, and worked for Cbarles Vose, and his or whether the defendant had any reasonable father and mother, in their restaurant. ground for believing she was. If you should It appears that, several years before this artind that at the time sbe was arrested by defend- rest, plaintiff's husband bad been arrested, and ant she was conducting herself in an orderly convicted and sent to state prison for some of. mapper, not committing any breach of the fense, but had recently returned. The plain. peace, or disorderly couduct or offense against tiff and he were then living together. The de. ihe law, and that ihe defendant bad no reason fendant, wbile on the stand as a witness, was to believe she was, then the defendant had no permitted to testify that about a year previous right or authority to arrest her, and the plain. he and another policeman visited the Gale tiff would be entitled to a verdict; and in such Block, in which was the Vose restaurant, and case it makes no difference what her past his- tbere knocked on the door; that Mr. Vose came tory may bave been, nor what her character to the door, and, being asked who was in there was, so far as any justification of the defendant with him, answered that it was his wife; that was concerned. But if you find, from the evi. he had also seen the plaintiff a great many dence in the case, that at the time of the arrest times on the street at from 10 to 12 o'clock, and the plaintiff was a woman of unchaste charac. that she did not seem to be doing any business, ter, and was upon the street engaged in street but just walkivg the street. walking, -that is, if she was upon the street for Plaintiff was recalled by the defense, and tes. the purpose of attracting attention and induc- tified that she was never put out of the Gale ing men to follow her for purposes of pros. Block in consequence of living with Mr. Vose; titution,--then the plaintiff is not entitled to that be did not live there with her; that he bad recover, unless you find that defendant used a room there, and she had a room, and a good unnecessary force and violence in making the many others had rooms there; that Mr. Miller, arrest. Or if you find, from the evidence, that the janitor of the building, never told her to the plaintiff was at the time of her arrest by the move out in consequence of the manner in defendant an unchaste woman, and known by wbich she conducted herself. the defendant to be so; and if you also find that Mr. Miller was then called by the defendant, she bad at that time the reputation of being a and testified that plaintiff had rooms there; that common prostitute, whether that reputation be served papers to get Vose out, but was not was deserved or undeserved, and that this rep- acquainted with the reputation of the plaintiff utation was known to defendant; and if you at that time; that he saw a man in there one Turther find that she was at that time upon the night, but could not see if there was anything public street, at such an hour and under such wrong; that it might have been Mr. Vose, as circumstances; her conduct was such that he told him they were going to be married in the defendant had reason to believe that she was about a week. Witness testified that he saw engaged in street walking,—then, whether she men go into the big hall door, but could not was so engaged in street walking or not, the say whether the room where they went was oc. defendant would be justified in making the ar- cupied by her. rest, and, unless you find that he used undeces. Mr. Warren was also called, and testified to sary force and violence in making the arrest, seeing plaintitf in bed with Vose. Other testiyour verdict should be for the defendant. The mony of like character was also given by de. question, as I bave already indicated to you, is fendant, under objection of counsel for the not altogether whether the plaintiff was already plaintiff. Defendant also gave evidence of the engaged in street walking, but whetber the de- general reputation of the plaintiff as a common fendant bad reasonable ground to believe she prostitute. Plaintiff denied all the specific acts was, and made the arrest upon such ground. of lewdress to prove which such witnesses were If he had reasonable ground to believe that she called. was engaged in street walking, and made the At the close of the testimony the counsel arrest on such ground, then defendant would for plaintiff asked the court to instruct the

a

Jury: "(1) If the jury shall find that the plain- It is claimed further, by counsel for defend tiff, at the time she was arrested by the defend ant, that the question whether the plaintiff was ant, was conducting herself in an orderly man at the time of the arrest engaged in street walkner, and not com initting any breach of the ing or not, or whether the defendant had reapeace, then the defendant had no right or au- sonable grounds to suppose that she was, was a thority to arrest her. (2) No officer is justified question for the jury, and, as such, was propin making an arrest without a warrant, when erly submitted to tbem. That it appears froin the person whom he arrests is peaceable, and the record the officer well knew the reputation not engaged in open violence; as, for example, of the appellant, and that she was a common by fighting, engaging in a riot, or about to es- prostitute; and judging from her actions, the cape after committing a felony. (3) The law unseasonable time of the night and the suspidoes not look with favor on arrests made with- cious quarter of the city, it cannot be said the out a warrant, and an arrest without a warrant officer acted arbitrarily or without good and cannot be justified if the person arrested was reasonable grounds for assuming and believing not engaged in a breach of the peace; as, for an that the appellant was then and there on the example, in fighting, or in a riot, or about to public streets plying her vocation as a common escape after having committed a felony. (4) If prostitute. the jury shall find that the plaintiff was, at the Counsel state, as a further proposition, that, time she was arrested, walking on the street, assuming it to have been true that the defendwithout molesting anyone, then she was not ant acted upon an uncertainty, but had good committing any act thăt would justify the de- and reasonable cause to believe that the plainfendant in arresting her without a warrant, and tiff was conducting berself unlawfully and in his act in arresting her was unjustifiable, and a disorderly manner, and did so believe, he the burden is on him to justify ibe act. (5) If would still be justitied in making the arrest in the jury shall find from the evidence that the the manner that he did." plaintiff, at the time of her arrest, was walking It is not claimed that the defendat had a on the street in a lawful manner, then the jury warrant for the arrest of the plaintiff at the time would be warranted in going beyond actual he took her into custody, and started to convey damages, and giving the plaintiff a further sum her to the jail; and it appears that no warrant as exemplary damages.

had ever been issued for the plaintiff's arrest for These instructions the court refused.

that or any other offense. From the whole recIt is insisted here that the arrest was legal, ord, it appears that tbe only excuse offered by and within the authority of the officer, under the defendant for the arrest on that night was the provisions of section 3 of chapter 14 of the that he had heard her reputation as a common charter of the City of Kalamazoo. This section prostitute discussed by the police officers of the is as follows:

city, and some others; had made up his mind "Sec. 3. The marshal and police shall have that she was such, and had seen her frequently and exercise, within said city, all the power on the streets, sometimes at upscasopable hours, given by law to constables for the preservation and at one time found her in bed with a Mr. of the peace, and to apprehend and arrest of- Vose. This is about the substance of the reafenders against the laws of the State. They sons given by him which led him on that night shall have the power to enter any disorderly or to believe she was on the street playing her gaming house, or dwelling-house, or any other vocation as a common prostitute. All he had building where a felon is known to be secreted seen that night was that the plaintiff was down or harbored, or where any person is who has on Main Street, went into the Watkins House committed any breach of the peace, or where with three other women, and from there up any felony or breach of the peace has been the street for a distance, and, turning, walked committed. It shall be the duty of the said towards her own home. He does not testify marshal and police, and they are hereby fully nor claim that he saw ber talking with any authorized, to suppress all riots, disturbances man, or that she accosted any man, or did any. and breaches of the peace; to arrest, upon view, tbing more than walk along a public street toall persons fleeing from justice; to apprehend, wards her own home, as any decent or wellupon view, any person found in the act of behaved lady might bave done. She was even committing any offense against the laws of the hurrying forward faster when she heard the State; and to take such persons before the defendant's footsteps rapidly approaching her proper oflicer or magistrate, to be dealt with as if to overtake her. When he had overaccording to law; to make complaints before taken her, he asked her name and where she the proper officer or magistrate of any person lived, and kept pace with her until she had known, or believed by them, to be guilty of arrived opposite her own door. He was not crime, or having violated any ordinance or reg- successful in finding out her name, and claims ulation of said city; and to serve all process, the plaintiff told him it was none of his writs and warrants that may be delivered to business. He started and walked away from them for that purpose, or that may be required her for a little distance, according to his own in any prosecution for the violation of any or- testimony, when she told him, or hallooed at dinance or regulation of said city. In prose- him, as he says, and dared bini to arrest her, cutions under any city ordinance or regulation when he turned, and said, "If you want to go of said city, the marshal and regular police to jail, I can take you there.” He then made thereof shall have the same powers, and shall the arrest. Can anything be more certain even perform the same duties, as are given to and from the defendant's own testimony, than that performed by constables under the laws of the the arrest was made because, as plaintiff says, State; and, generally, they shall perform all she gave him some sauce, or as defendant says, such duties pertaining to their respective offices she dared him to arrest her? He knew as well as may be required by the city council.” when he started to leave her, whether she was on the street plying her vocation as a common of enforcing the law for the public good. The prostitute, as he did when he made the arrest; officer had no right to arrest the plaintiff with. and yet he turned away to leave, and only made out warrant upon mere suspicion that she was the arrest when she dared him to make it. upon the street for the purpose of plying her

If persons can be restrained of their liberty, vocation as a common prostitute, even under and assaulted and imprisoned, under such cir- the provisions of the city ordinance above cited. cumstances, without complaint or warrant, Our Statute gives no such right, and at the then there is no limit to the power of a police common law no such right existed. Suspicion oflicer. Personal liberty, which is guaranteed that a party has on a former occasion committo every citizen under our Constitution and ted a misdemeanor is no justification for givlaws, consists of the right of locomotion,—to ing him in charge of a constable without a go where one pleases, and when, and to do that justice's warrant; and there is no distinction in which may lead to one's business or pleasure, this respect, between one kind of misdemeanor only so far restrained as the rights of others and another. 1 Archb. Crim. Pr. and Pl. p. may make it necessary for the welfare of all 103, note 1; 2 Hale, P. C. 89. other citizens. One may travel along the pub- An arrest for misdemeanor, without a warlic bighways or in public places; and wbile rant, by one who does not see the offense comconducting themselves in a decent and orderly mited, is illegal. mander, disturbing no other, and interfering In People v. Pratt, 22 Hun, 300, it was held with the rights of no other citizens there they that an officer had no authority to arrest, with. will be protected under the law, not only in out warrant, a common prostitute, unless distheir persons, but in their safe conduct. The orderly conduct is committed in his presence. Constitution and the laws are framed for the It is true that an officer, as a conservator of the public good, and the protection of all citizens. peace, may arrest street walkers or common from the highest to the lowest; and no one may prostitutes who are on the street plying their vobe restrained of his liberty, unless he has trans- cation; but a mere suspicion that they are gressed some law. Auy law which would place doing so, where there is no act indicating that the keeping and safe conduct of another in the the party is there for that purpose, will not jusbands of even the conservator of the peace, un- tify the arrest without warrant. less for some breach of the peace committed in In Re Way, 41 Mich. 304, Mr. Justice Camp his presence, or upon suspicion of felony, bell, speaking upon the subject of arrest with. would be most oppressive and unjust, and de- out warrant, says: “It must not be forgotten stroy all the rights which our Constitution that there can be po arrest without due process guarantees. These are rights which existed of law. An arrest without warrant has never long before our Constitution, and we have taken been lawful, except in those cases where the just pride in their maintenance, making them public security requires it, and this has only a part of the fundamental law of the land. I been recognized in felony, and in breaches of Wbatever the charter and ordinances of the the peace committed in presence of the officer, City of Kalamazoo may provide, no police of- Quinn v. Heisel, 40 Mich. 576, and Drennan v. ficer or other conservator of the peace can con- People, 10 Mich. 169." stitutionally be clothed with such power as was The court was in error in that portion of its attempted to be exercised here. Nodisorderly charge relative to the defendant's acting upon conduct; po breach of the peace, committed in his information and belief that the plaintiff presence of the oflicer; no suspicion of felony, was a common prostitute, as a justification for -and yet under the charge of the court which the arrest without warrant. The court was counsel seek to maintain here, a woman may, also in error in refusing to give the plaintiff's simply upon suspicion that she may commit an requests to charge. Each request stated the law act which al most would only amount to a mis correctly as applied to this case, and should demeanor, be assaulted and imprisoned, if the have been given. The court was also in error officer bas good reason to believe, and does be in permitting defendant to introduce evidence lieve, that she is plying her vocation in such a of specific acts of lewdness on the part of plain. manner that it will result in an offense. No tiff. On such a trial, it could not be expected more dangerous doctrine could be laid down. that a party so attacked could be prepared to It is a doctrine which, if upheld, would place meet every issue so made. even the most respectable lady in the land un- The judgment must be set aside, with costs, and der the surveillance of policemen, and give a new trial ordered. them authority to arrest and imprison upon Campbell, Champlin and Morse, JJ., mere suspicion of an offense, however insig. concurred with Long, J. niticant; and, if carried to the extent contained in the charge of the circuit judge, it would not matter how undeserved the bad character or reputation of such person might be. If idle

Joseph H. COFRODE et al., Relators, gossip is once set afloat, reflecting upon the character and reputation of the most virtuous George GARTNER, Circuit Judge, Respt. woman, and that gossip once comes to the ears of the police oflicer, he may act upon it, and be

(...... Mich.......) led to believe that the woman is upon the street 1. An action on contract is within the jurigintending to ply her vocation as a street walker

diction of the courts of the State in which was or common prostitute, and at once, without the

the place of performance, although the parties formality of complaint or warrant, place ber are residents of other States. under arrest and convey ber to jail. The law 2. Consent of the parties is sufficient to has more regard for the liberty of the citizen, give jurisdiction over them to a court which has and there is a more decent and orderly manner jurisdiction of the subject matter.

V.

3. Filing a declaration on the part of the p. 491; Barrell v. Benjamin, supra; Daris v.

plaintiff, and appearance and pleading on the Pierse, 7 Minn. 13; Morgan v. Neville, 74 Pa. part of defendants, is a sufficient waiver of pro- | 52; Story, Conf. L. & 542; Wharton, Conf. L. cess, although the parties are nonresidents.

$ 705; Miller v. Black and Great Western R. 4. The right of citizens of other States Co. v. Miller, supra; Gardner v. Thomas, 14

to bring suit in a state court where a citizen Jobps, 134.
of that State may, is guaranteed and protected by Mr. Otto Kirchner, for respondent:
U.S. Const., art. 4, 8 2.

The courts have always recognized consid6. A court has no discretion to refuse erations of public interest and public conven.

to hear a case between ponresidents of which ience as paramount, and refused to entertain it bas jurisdiction, merely because the suit is suits of aliens where public interest or public brought there only for convenience of parties convenience seemed to require that they should and attorneys, and will entail expense upon the

pot do so. county.

Bacon, Abr, title Aliens; Gardner v. Thomas, (Campbell, J., dissents.)

14 Jobps. 134; The Belgenland, 114 U. S. 363

(29 L. ed. 155); Great Western R. Co. v. Miller, (January 31, 1890.)

19 Mich. 315; McCormick v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 49 N. Y. 303; Barrell v. Benjamin, 15

PETI Tespondere, worüciclum andame yet to come Mass. 354; Roberts v. Dunsmuir, 75 Cal. 203.

pel respondent, as Circuit Judge for Wayne County, to entertain a suit growing out of a Champlin, Ch. J., delivered the opinion of contract to be periormed in another part of the the court: State, between parties all of whom are non- On the 7th day of December, 1889, the relaresidents of the State, defendants having ap- tors commenced suit in the Circuit Court for peared by attorney without service of process. the County of Wayne by filing a declaration Writ granted.

against Walston H. Brown, Columbus R. CumThe facts are fully

stated in the

opinions. mings, Samuel Thomas and William B. HowMessrs. Ashley Pond, W. L. Carpen- ard. On December 16, 1889, defendants apter and John Atkinson, for relators: peared in suid cause by their attorueys, and

The Circuit Court for the County of Wayne demanded a bill of particulars, which was furhas jurisdiction of the subject matier of actions nislied on the same day. The defendants also of assumpsit upon agreements which must be pleaded the general issue, with no:ice of reperformed, if performed at all, within the State, coupment, of wbich they furnished a bill of but elsewhere than in the County of Wayne. particulars. After the cause was at issue it

Thompson v. Michigan Mut. Ben. Asso. 52 was regularly noticed for trial by the plaintiffs? Mich. 522; Atkins v. Borstler, 46 Mich. 552. attorneys, and placed upon the docket for trial

Its jurisdiction in that regard does not depend by jury at the January Term of said court. upon whetber or not any of the parties to the On December 23, 1889, the defendants filed an agreement in question, or to the action, are res- affidavit in support of a motion for a struck idents of the State.

jury, wbich caine on to be heard on the 7th day Great Western R. Co. V. Miller, 19 Mich. of January, 1890, before Ilon. George Gard305; Roberts v. Knights, 7 Allen, 449; Peabody ner, Circuit Judge for the County of Wayne. V. Hamilton, 106 Mass. 217; Roberts v. Duns. The plaintiff opposed the motion, and filed an muir, 75 Cal. 203; Barrell v. Benjamin, 15 affidavit in opposition thereto. The motion Mass. 354; Miller v. Black, 2 Jones, L. 341; Mc- was submitted to the court, and without decidCormick v. Pennsylania R. Co. 49 N. Y. 303; ing it the said circuit judge on the 13th day of Latourette v. Clarke, 45 Barb. 327.

January, 1890, of his own motion made an orIt is not essential to give jurisdiction of the der striking the case from the docket on the subject matter of a particular action, of the ground that all the parties to the suit were nonkind in question, that the defendant should be residents; a copy of wbich order is as follows: actually found and served with process within “[Title of court and cause.) The application said siate and county; the voluntary appear. for a struck jury heretofore made in ibis cause ance of such defendants will suffice to give such baving been duly considered, it satisfactorily jurisdiction.

appearing to the court that the parties to this flawes, Jurisdiction of Courts, 243; Mason action are nonresidents, and tbai the cause of v. The Blaireau, 6 U. S. 2 Cranch, 240 (2 L. action and the subject matter thereof arose in ed. 266); Baldiin v. Murphy, 82 Ill. 485; Mc- the upper peninsula of this Stale, it is ordered Cormick v. Pennsylvania R. Co. supra; Rrls-that said cause be, and it hereby is, strickeu ton v. Chapin, 49 Mich. 274; Johnston v. Toste. from the docket. vin, 60 Iowa, 46; Christal v. Kelly, 88 N. Y. The plaintiffs are both residents of the State 285.

of Pennsylvania. Three of the defendants are Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all residents of New York; one, of Illinois. the privileges and immunities of citizens of the The controversy respecting which suit is several States.

brought arises under a contract for building a U. S. Const. art. 4, § 2, subd. 1.

railroad in this State in the upper peninsula. Among the privileges so guaranteed to the Early in the year 1888 the plaintiffs commenced citizens of any State within any other State, is suit by attachment in the County of Marquette, the privilege of instituting and maintaining ac- but, for reasons stated in the petition for a tions in the courts of such other States.

mandamus, that suit was discontinued, and this Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. C. C. 380: commenced by mutual understanding, on the Slaughter House Cases, 83 U. S. 16 Wall. 76 agreement of the parties. The relators pray (21 L. ed. 408); Paul v. Virginia, 75 U. S. 8 tbat a writ of mandamus issue to saiu circuit Wall. 180 (19 L. ed. 360); Cooley, Const. Lim. I junge, directing him to vacate the above order striking the case from the docket. In show-| lows: "(1) That the said circuit court has po ing cause why the mandamus should not be jurisdiction of the said alleged cause. (2) That granted, Judge Gartner sets out the opinion the consent of parties and their attorneys does rendered by him at the time he ordered the not and cannot confer jurisdiction upon said case struck from the docket, as follows: “Up-court, inasmuch as all parties, both the alleged on the application made for a struck jury, it plaintiffs and the alleged defendants are nonreswas made to appear that the plaintiffs were residents of this State. (3) That, if jurisdiction idents of and do business in the City of Phila- can be conferred by consent of parties and atdelphia, and the defendants in the City of New torneys, it does not become obligatory upon York. The subject matter of the controversy the court to entertain jurisdiction, but whether arose and is locaied in the upper peninsula of the same sball be entertained or not by the this State. This is shown in the affidavit of court is a matter which rests in the sound discounsel, wherein it is stated: “Afiant furtber cretion of the court; and that public convensays that all the parties to this suit are nonres- ience and interest are paramount to the priidents of this State; . . . that tbe transaction vate convenience of the parties. (4) That it involved in tbis suit arose in the upper penin- is apparent from the facts set out that the said sula of Michigan. It appears that i he declara- alleged suit is brought into the Circuit Court tion was filed December 7, 1889, and the plea for the County of Wayne for the convenience December 16 following. No process ever is- of the parties and their attorneys only." sued out of this court in said matter, por was I sball consider these reasons in the order service bad, and it is apparent that this forum pamed by the circuit judge. wherein to litigate and determine this contro- First, as to the jurisdiction of the circuit versy is by consent of counsel, and selected for court. The several circuit courts in this State convenience.' This suit involves a large are courts of general jurisdiction. The cause amount of money, the claim in the declaration of action stated in the declaration is transitory. being $1,000,000; and several weeks will bave It is action of assumpsit, arising out of a con. to be consumed in the trial thereof, involving tract claimed to bave been performed in this the county in expense of thousands of dollars, State; and the Circuit Court for the County of and in a matter wberein the county has no in- Wayne has cognizance of suits upon contracts terest, either in the parties or the subject mat- like the one sued upon irrespective of the localter. It certainly does not seem right that the ity of their origin, provided the parties, by servpeople of this county should be made to bear ice of process or otherwise, are before the the burden of expense of determining contro- court. Thompson v. Michigan Mut. Ben. A880. versies between foreign litigants. The docket 52 Mich. 522. of this court is crowded, and we have more Were the parties properly before the court ? than we can do in determining matter3 where. The suit was not commenced by either of the in the jurisdiction of the court is undoubted. two methods authorized by $ 7291, How. Stat. This case has no business here, and an order The petition asserts that the suit was comwill be entered striking it from the docket." menced by the filing of the declaration (and a

He further states as follows: "That on in. copy is attached to the petition). In so doing formation and belief this respondent states the the plaintiffs submitted themselves to the ju. fact to be that the relators were not obliged to risdiction of the court, as a party to the record come into this State to prosecute their right of (People v. McCafrey, 75 Mich. 115), and the deaction against said defendants. Neither did fendonts, by appearing and pleading to the they casually find them, or any of them, in this declaration, voluntarily submitted themselves State, nor was the appearance or plea en- likewise to the jurisdiciion of the court. While tered by the said defendants, or any of them, it is true that no consent of parties can give a in obedience to any process issued out of said court jurisdiction of the subject matter of a circuit court, nor in obedience to any notice of suit which the court did not possess without rule to plead indorsed upon a copy of the dec. such consent, it is equally true that a court can laration filed in said circuit court at commence: obtain jurisdiction over the person by the conment of suit, . but said declaration and sent of such person; and service of process is plea were filed, and said appearance was en- always treated as waived by a general appeartered, in accordance with the previous stipula- ance in the cause, and pleading to the merits. tion of the parties.”

And this is so although the defendant is a nonHe further alleges that there are 922 cases resident, and suable only in a particular place. upon the docket, of which 713 are for trial by Thompson v. Michigan Mut. Ben. A380. supra. jury at the present term, exclusive of criminal There is no claim or pretense that this is a cases; tha, the circuit court is overcrowded fictitious suit, or that it is not brought in good with business, and that the disposition of faith, to determine a genuine controversy of causes in said circuit court is delayed because vital interest to the parties concerned. Section of the crowded state of its docket; that the 7547 of Howell's Statutes enacts that issues of trial of the alleged cause would consume at fact in actions upon contracts shall be tried in least a month of the time of the judges and the county where one of the parties shall rejury, and in that way would seriously interfere side at the commencement of suit, unless, for with the disposition of the legitimate business the convenience of parties and their witnesses, of the court, besides entailing upon the County or for the purposes of a fair and impartial of Wayne an expense of many thousands of trial, the court shall deem it necessary to order dollars; and that he made the order complained such issues to be tried in some other designated of because be deemed the same in the interest county. This provision, however, applies only of the administration of public justice, and of to residents. the public welfare. He summarizes his reasons We beld in Atkins v. Borstler, 46 Mich, 553, for striking the cause from the docket as fol- that the Statute does not apply to nonresident

« AnteriorContinuar »