The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1907-10-24
Ruling Of the Michigan Supreme
Court Very Interesting in
the Sykes Case
HAS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
The Michigan Court Holds That Man
Charged With Robbing Freight
Car Must be Tried in County
Where Act Was Committed

AAAAOA nCVS III ACAOSAd COunly TIC
taking great interest in case just de-
cided by the Supreme Court, of Michi-
gan, on account of the fact that it is
claimed that the case is direct parcel
lei to the case of George r. Sykes, the
Milwaukee man who was recently dis
charged here after being placed on
trial on charge of robbing cars of
the Northwes tern Railway company.
The decision was handed down on
September 20, and as the Michigan
law is almost identical with the Wis
consin law, it is generally believed
that there will be no reason to seek a
decision Oh the Sykes case from the
Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
In the Michigan case Leo Brock was
convicted in Oakland county on a
charge of larceny and the proof
brought out at the trial showed that
the crime had been committed in the
adjoining county of Wayne, and no
testimony was brought 10 show that
the articles were stolen in Oakland
county as alleged in the information.
The man was tried on the law which
provided that man charged with
robbjug a railway car might be tried
in any county through which the rail-
way passes.
The attorneys for the accused man
raised the constitutional point that
under the constitution of the state
the man would have a right to a
trial by jury in the county where the
offense was committed. Judge George
w. Smith overruled the motion to
tional point and the case was sub
mitted to the jury and Brock was
found guilty as charged and SEN
fenced. His attorneys at once APP
pealed the case to the Supreme Court
The case was argued before Judge J.
Hooker, one of the best known iurists
of the Michigan Supreme Court and
he decided that the decision of the
lower Court was reversed and that
the defendant was entitled to new
trial. AS in the Sykes case the de-
cision resulted in the discharge of
the defendant.
In his decision Judge Hooker says:
''The defendant was convicted of
stealing property from car en- route
from Detroit to Ovid, under Comp.
Laws, S11,6 33.
"He was convicted in Oakland
county, and the proof indicated that
the act was committed in the adioin-
ing county Of Wayne, and not in Oak
land county, and no testimony was
offered tending to show that the arti.
cles were stolen in Oakland county,
where the information alleges that
they were stolen The court in
structed the jury that the defendant
might lawfully be convicted of the
offense charged, although the theft
was committed in the county of Wayne
and not of Oakland. This was clearly
error, unless the same was justified
by the statute cited, which provides
chat every person who shall COM
init the crime of larceny in a railroad
car while in the state of Michigan,
and en- route, shall be liable to prose-
cution in any county through which
said car passes, and any court of COM
petent jurisdiction Of said county
shall have jurisdiction to try and de.
ternine said cause the same as though
said offense had been committed liz
the county where the complaint is
made" Counsel for respondent claim
that said section is in conflict with
article 6, 81, Of the Constitution;
/. e.; 1.-The right of trial by jury shall
remain, but shall be deemed to be
waived in all civil cases, unless de-
manded by one of the parties, in such
manner as shall be prescribed by
law" The case of Swart v. Kimba1l,
43 Mich. 443, N w. 635, construed
this section of the Constitution, hold
ing that the right there reserved to
the people was trial by jury as it had
become known to the previous iuris-
prudence of the state, one of the es-
sentials of which was a trial in the
county where the alleged offense was
committed. In that case a prosecu-
tion for trespass on state lands was
attempted in county other than that
in which the lands we're situated. The
act was held void.
''It is contended that the statute
upon which the case now before us
rests is distinguishable, aud may be
sustained. This claim may be re-
solved into the suggestion that, when
property has been stolen from rail-
road car in transit, there may be diff
Guilty Ia proving where the car was at
the time the property was eakens and
therefore that there is ?. necessity for