The times., 1901-05-23
S. Kann, Sons & Co.,
Eighth and Market Space.

" of the amendments to the Constitution
of the United States. But these two prop
| ositions may be well considered together,
as presenting one general question relat-
ing to the power and jurisdiction of the
Police Court to try and convict the de-
Tenant"
/ Proceeding, the court says: THAT the
Police Court had full power and jurisdic-
/ tion over the subject of petit larceny, and
full power and jurisdiction to try and
/ convict a party charged with the COM
mission Of that crime. upon information
( filed by the District Attorney. is not uues-
toned That jurisdiction is expressly con-
I ferred by the act OF Congress, entitled
/ An act to define the Jurisdiction of the
! Police Court of the District of Columbia
! approved March g. 1891
1t is true, the Police Court is a statu-
! tory tribunal of special and limited juris-
! diction, but that fact does not affect the
/ question involved in this case If the pro-
/ ceedings IN that court show upon their
| face that the court had acquired juris-
( dictton Of the subject matter and of the
/ person charged, even though the proceed
| ings may have been conducted errone-
Ously.
! For. as said by the Supreme Court in
the case OF Comstock vs. Crawford, 1t Is
Well settled that when the jurisdiction of
court of limited and special authority
appears upon the face of it's proceedings,
its action cannot be cOllateraIiy attacked
dlction appearing the same presumption
OF law arises that il was rightly exercised
as prevails with reference TO the action
OF court OF superior and general au-
The opinion goes on to discuss the oues
ton OF what the law defines as a col
. lateral attack, and holds that this case
is collateral attack, and that the judg-
ment OF the Police Court cannot be as
sailed unless such judgment is void And
IN y. holding that the judgment Of the Police
Court Is not void, the court SAYS:
1t is conteuded on the part of the de
fendant that the law requires that the
information should have been founded
upon oath or affidavit Of the r1rosecut
Ing witness, or other person possessing
knowledge OF the facts. and that the al
legation in the information that n Was
made on the oath Of one Mandel Shines
dld not crafty the requirement. of the
statute, and therefore the Information
was legally insufficient. But whether the
act OF Congress Of June II, 1870 which
provided that prosecutions IN the Police
Court should be by information under
oath was repealed or not by the act of
Congress of March g. 1891 which Simply
provides that prosecutions in The poIfca
Court shall be by information nv the
proper prosecuting officer is a Question
that we need not decide in this case.
BY appearing and pleading TO the in
formation and submitting to be tried
thereon without objection the defendant
IN legal contemplation, admitted the va
lidity and sufficiency Of the information
anu IL LVAlu libl dIiGTWaTQ be heard IN
deny its legal suficiency. and especiaIIv
not in a collateral proceeding
When an information or complaint is
filed charging crime over which the
court has Jurisdiction the court has the
power TO cause the defendant TO be
brought before it to answer the charge.
and when he is actually before the court
and is called upon to plead if he has any
objection to make as TO the manner in
which he was brought before IT, he ought
TO make the objection and move TO qu8sh
the information, or that he be discharged
therefrom
As stated. Justice Shepard dissented
from the judgment Of the court but did
not file a written opinion.
In the cases Of Lewis Davis, Dorcas
Chambers, Elliott Wallingford Alice
Jackson, Lester Whitley, and Nathan
Fleet, who were released from custody
through habcas corpus proceedings. the
orders issued by the Supreme Court Of the
District were also reversed In these
cases the prisoners We're released on the
ground that the iufOrmations upon which
they were tried in the Police Court were
void because they were not attested by
the proper officer of the court.