Case Name: The State ex rel. Attorney-General v. Gill, Judge
Court: Supreme Court of Missouri
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1897-02-20
Citations: 137 Mo. 627
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State ex rel. Attorney-General v. Gill, Judge.
Judges: All the judges of the first division cpncur; Judge Macearlane concurring in the result.
Reporter: Missouri Reports
Volume: 137
Pages: 627–628

Head Matter:
The State ex rel. Attorney-General v. Gill, Judge.
Division One,
February 20, 1897.
Appellate Practice: certiorari: habeas corpus: court op appeals. On an application for certiorari to remove into the supreme court the record of a proceeding on a writ of habeas corpus, pending before Judge Gill, of the Kansas City court of appeals, it was held that, as the judge had general jurisdiction of the subject-matter, and it did not appear that any objection to his proceeding had been made before him, or that any want of jurisdiction appeared in the record there, the writ of certiorari would be denied.
Application for Certiorari.
Writ denied.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM.
Per Curiam.
The attorney-general has applied for a certiorari to remove into the supreme court the record of a proceeding in habeas corpus pending before Judge Gill, upon an application by Mr. Lowe. The petition for the writ here shows that no hearing has yet been had upon the writ of habeas corpus. No objection appears to have been made to Judge Gill on the ground of any alleged want of jurisdiction on his part to entertain and pass upon that writ. He has general jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the proceeding pending before him. If his authority is limited, or wanting, because of facts beyond the record in the habeas corpus case, it is (as a general rule) the duty of anyone so claiming, to bring those facts into view there, before presenting an application elsewhere based on those facts. The present application does not satisfy us that any want of jurisdiction appears as yet in the record or proceedings in the case before Judge Grill. We therefore deny the request for a certiorari, without expressing any opinion^ on the question whether or not a contempt has been committed.
All the judges of the first division cpncur; Judge Macearlane concurring in the result.