The true northerner., 1886-03-25
Either or Roth.

The greatest legal tribunal within the jur-
isdiction of the great lake bound state of
Michigan. our supreme court, has recently
made a decision, that for legal acumen,
grammatical construction and wiseacre efful-
gence retires to the shades all the authorities,
Noah Webster, Joseph Worcester, Sir VIM.
Blackstone Storey, Kent and all others
from Balaam's boon companion down to our
own Joe Blake. The decision referred TO is
upon a certain point in a case appealed to
that august body from one of our circuit
courts upon trial under the statutes regu-
lating the sale of intoxicating liquors 1t
appears that the appellant had been convict
ed and the case was reversed upon that part
of the statute which reads as follows: "and,
upon conviction thereof, shall be punished
by fine of not less than $25, nor more
than 500 and costs of prosecution, and
imprisonment in the county jail not less than
ten days, etc., in the discretion of the court.
And in case such fine shall not be paid, etc,
etc, the person shall be further detained,
ETC." The case, as we understand it, was
made upon the construction of the word
''and." Our supreme court says that "and"
means cor" and the Judge of the circuit
court erred in imposing both fine and im-
prisonment; he could only legally impose
one form of punishment, fine or imprison-
ment. Shades of the immortal Noah don't
and mean and? There is no Disgusting the
fact that our supreme court has not, thanks
TO the too jealous efforts of our prohibition
friends, Thomas NJ. Cooley IN its member
ship, and if Justice Campbell, by any means,
should be removed and another reform can
didate put III his place. what will become of
the supreme bench of Michigan, whose de-
cisions for years past, have been referred To
by courts throughout the land as the most
eminent uthority?-Hdrt0rd Ddyspring.
The NoRTHERNEn does not feel called upon
to act as a champion of the supreme court,
and would have no comments to make on
the foregoing article, were it not for the fact
that it long ago contended for the same con-
struction that has now been put upon the
statute. In its issue of August Sd, 1563 in
discussion of the matter with Mr.. A. II.
Heron. an able supporter of the other side
of the question, il advocated the same doc
trine recently announced bv the supreme
court, and is now able to write opposite its
case Judgment affirmed
The criticisms of the Dayspriag would be
much more forcible and logical had il not
reasoned from false premises. The case in
which the decision referred to was made
was that of the people ss. Minter from this
county. 1t was not the court that said and
should mean or, and siee cersd, bat it was
the Legislature of Michigan. when they en-
acted tho following statute-Sec 96Os, How
ellis statutes:
"Vhenerer it is provided that an offender
shall be punished by imprisonment in the
" county Jail and fine, such offender may,
at the discretion Of the court, be sentenced
to be punished by imprisonment actGhout
the fine, or by such fine SoithOut the impris-
onment: and, whenever it is provided that
an offense shall be punished by fine or
imprisonment, the court may impose both
such fine and imprisonment in its discre-
tion."
1t was upon this section that the
supreme court based its opinion. section
that provides by statute a rule of oonstruc-
ton that must be followed. If anybody has
tampered with Worcester, Webster or other
great photographers, il was the legislature and
not the court.
Further, the court did not hold that the
circuit judge "erred in imposing both fine
and imprisonment he could only impose
one form of punishment, fine or imprison-
ment," as the following quotation from the
opinion will show:
"When the respondent was brought 60 the
" bar of the court for sentence the respond
ent's counsel insisted that the court had
+" discretionary authority to pronounce SEN
tence upon the respondent, by either fine
or imprisonment, and requested tho court
4" to exercise such discretion; but tho court,
F" being satisfied that il had no such discre-
" tionary power, declined TO exercise the
same upon that ground and for that rea
son.. In this construction of the law there
" is error. The court was at liberty to use
" his discretion; in 80 doing he might have
awarded the same punishment he did in
this case, and which he was at liberty to
do, but the entry contained in the judg-
ment above stated expressly shows be did
" not do so"