Case ID: mont_86/html/0147-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HONORABLE CHARLES W. POMEROY, District Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ex parte LYFORD.
    (No. 6,615.)
    (Submitted November 25, 1929.
    Decided December 2, 1929.)
    [282 Pac. 500.]
    
      
      Mr. H. H. Parsons and Mr. James D. Taylor, for Complainant.
    
      Mr. L. A. Foot, Attorney General, and Mr. T. A. MacDonald, Assistant Attorney General, for tbe State.
   HONORABLE CHARLES W. POMEROY, District Judge,

sitting in place of MR. JUSTICE GALEN, absent on account of illness, delivered tbe opinion of tbe court.

Tbis is an application for a writ of babeas corpus on bebalf of Nat C. Lyford, an inmate of tbe state prison, committed by virtue of a judgment of conviction of tbe crime of grand larceny by tbe district court of Missoula county. The judgment followed a verdict of guilty.

Tbe petition sets forth tbe proceedings in tbe district court and also tbe process by which tbe petitioner is held. Tbe case has been submitted on tbe petition.

Tbe petitioner raises no question as to tbe sufficiency of tbe information or commitment. His claim for discharge is based upon the assertion that the court lost jurisdiction by permitting an amended information to be filed changing tbe sex of tbe animal charged to have been stolen, tbe character of tbe brand, and tbe name of tbe owner, and by permitting such amended information to be amended in tbe same particulars when tbe case was subsequently called for trial. It may be remarked that tbe petitioner was duly arraigned and pleaded not guilty on each occasion, and that he did not challenge the jurisdiction of the court prior to verdict.

“Where the court had jurisdiction of the person, place and subject matter, and power to render the particular sentence, its judgment cannot be successfully impeached on habeas corpus.” (Church on Habeas Corpus, 356, 362; In re Shaffer, 70 Mont. 609, 227 Pac. 37; State v. District Court, 35 Mont. 321, 89 Pac. 63.)

“When there is jurisdiction of the party and of the offense for which he is tried, the decision of all other questions arising in the case is but an exercise of that jurisdiction.” (16 C. J. 147.)

Objections as to jurisdiction of the person are waived by the defendant pleading not guilty and going to trial. (16 C. J. 174, 184; 8 R. C. L. 96; People v. Hall, 169 N. Y. 184, 62 N. E. 170; In re Roszcynialla, 99 Wis. 534, 75 N. W. 167; State v. Bjorkland, 34 Kan. 377, 8 Pac. 391; Eakins v. State, 7 Okl. Cr. 351, 123 Pac. 1035.)

The proceeding is dismissed.

Mr. Chief Justice Callaway and Associate Justices Matthews, Ford and Angstman concur.