Case ID: minn_13/html/0520-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Berry, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

State of Minnesota vs. John Tiner et al.
    An appeal (from a judgment rendered upon a criminal prosecution by a Justice of the Peace,) to the District Court upon questions of fact, or questions of law and fact; is to “ be tried in the same manner as if originally commenced in the District Court,” and where the Justice has jurisdiction of the subject matter of the prosecution, and of the persons of the defendants, who are legally brought before him on proper papers, neither the appeal nor the cause should be dismissed, nor the defendants discharged, on account of errors in the proceedings before the Justice, but there should be a re-trial.
    
      The defendants in this case appeal from the judgment of the District Court for Dakota county, rendered upon a retrial, upon an appeal from a judgment of a justice of the peace. The only error alleged and complained of is the denial of a motion, which is fully stated in the opinion of the Court.
    S. Smith for Appellants.-
    P. R. E. Cornell, Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Berry, J.

By the Cowrt The defendants having been convicted before a justice of the peace of an assault and battery, fined, and committed until their fines and the costs should be paid, took an appeal to the District Court for Dakota county. They there moved for a dismissal of the appeal, as appears by the Clerk’s minutes; and for a dismissal of the cause, and for their own discharge, as appears by the settled case. The motion was based upon certain alleged errors in the proceedings before the justice, but it was not claimed that the justice had not jurisdiction of the subject matter of the prosecution, nor that the defendants were not legally brought before him upon a proper complaint and warrant, so that he acquired jurisdiction of their persons. Whether the proceedings before the Justice were substantially. erroneous, so that if. overhauled, in some way, they could have been .set aside and the defendants discharged, or not, we conceive to be unimportant as the case now stands.

We infer from the paper book that the appeal to the District Court was taken either upon questions of fact, or upon questions of law and fact, though the paper book does not enable us to determine which. And in either case the action was to be “ tried in the same manner as if originally commenced in the District Court.” Laws 1865, p. 50; G. S., p. 443, see. 150 ; Laws 1867, p. 128, sec. 3. If the complaint and warrant were insufficient, or if for any reason the Justice had no jurisdiction of the defendants, or of the subject of the action, the District Court might dismiss and discharge upon, motion. If the papers were sufficient, and the justice had the requisite jurisdiction, then the fact that errors have been committed by the Justice in the course of the proceedings before him, was not a reason for dismissing the appeal, or the cause, or discharging the defendants.

But it was a good reason for a re-trial, and upon that those errors might be avoided or corrected. That re-trial the statutes gives, and the defendants had the benefit of the same.

Judgment affirmed.