The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1888-12-26
That Eight Months Sentence.

Justice Fisher, the Decatur magis-
trate who sent a tramp 10 Jail for eight
months for stealing an overcoat, in an
an article published in the Decatur Re
publican, replying TO an item published
in the NoRTHERNER, argues that he
didn't give the fellow any more than he
deserved. That is probably correct,
but nevertheless it was sentence in
excess of jurisdiction.
Chapter $50, Howells statutes, is the
source from which justices derive their
criminal jurisdiction; and cOmpiler's
section z, 1873 of that chapter limits the
extent of the punishment to fine not
exceeding one hundred dollars, or i'm
prisonment in the common jail of the
county for a term not exceeding three
months, or both, in the discretion of
the court.
As long ago as 1859 the supreme court
decided that justices of the peace had
no jurisdiction TO try cases where the
maximum punishment allowed by stat
ute exceeds one hundred dollars fine
and three months imprisonment: 9TH
Mich, 467 This decision was virtually
reaffirmed in Pardee VS.. Smith, eth
Mich, Al.
Justice Fisher based his judgment on
section 9, 140 of Howells statutes, which
authorizes an Imprisonment of not more
than one year; but the supreme court
said, in the case of Nelson VS.. the Peo-
pie, 3Sth Mich, 6l9, decided in 1873,
that since the enactment of the statute
first above cited, which is two years
later than section 9, l40, ''it is not
claimed that a justice of the peace can
intlict the punishment of imprisonment
for IA period exceeding three months"
This decision was substantially reaf-
firmed in the case of Brown VS.. the Peo-
pie, 39th Mich, 81. In the case of Cor
don VS.. the People, decided in 1890,
44th Mich, 1856, the former decisions of
the court in reference to this matter
were all held to be the proper construc
ton of the law-the last three cases
cited holding that even a court of rec
ord has no jurisdiction to sentence an
offender for an offense originally cog
nizable by Justice of the peace TO
greater punishment than the magistrate
himself might have done
Justice Fisher virtually admits that
he made mistake, but argues that it
was a natural one, in view of the appa-
rent discrepancy in the provisions of
the two sections of the statute herein
in that II was not the intention of the
| NoRTHERNER to cast any undue retlec-
tions on his action. 1t was fully aware
of the law upon which his sentence was
! based, and knew il was very pardon
able mistake.
Under the decisions cited, the prison
er will be entitled to his discharge at
| the expiration of three months confine-
ment in the county jail.
Justice Fisher asks the NORTHERNER
To "sit as a Judge and not as "A critic" :"
If it were sitting either as judge or crit
| ic, il could come to no other conclusion
than that eight months imprisonment
is an excessive sentence.
The NoRTHERNER appreciates the
difficulty alluded to by Mr.. Fisher, that
Justices of the peace are not furnished
with the decisions of the supreme court;
but the county provides an officer who
is supposed to be learned in the law
and whose duty it is to advise and
counsel magistrates in regard to all
such matters.
Mr. Fisher, after arguing that an inn
prisonment during the winter is no
punishment TO thieving tramp, says:
! 81 cannot for n moment believe YOU
would encourage tramps or offer n
bounty TO petty thieves" Certainly
the NoRTHERNER would do no such
thing, but it would not have the law
violated by the courts whose duty il is
To administer the law rs it really is, not
rs they think it ought TO be. Such a
course would destroy all law and make
every magistrate law unto himself
which would lead to a deplorable con
dtion indeed.