Case Name: In the Matter of Frederick Hall
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1862-05-15
Citations: 10 Mich. 210
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Frederick Hall.
Judges: 
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 10
Pages: 210–211

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Frederick Hall.
[The preceding case In the matter of John Morion affirmed.]
Where a witness is committed, until he shall submit to answer, he is entitled, to discharge when the proceeding is discontinued. (Per Manning J.)
Heard May 14th.
Decided May 15th.
Habeas Corpus. The petition showed that, on a complaint being made before a justice of the peace under section 9 of the Prohibitory Liquor Law, petitioner was subpoenaed as a witness to lay the foundation for 2R-’ocess against the person complained of; that a question was put to him which he refused to answer; whereupon the justice issued his warrant, committing him to the common jail until he should submit to answer the question, and he discharged by due course of law. The j^tition further showed that on issuing this commitment all further proceedings on the complaint- were discontinued. The complaint was the same set forth in the preceding case of John Morton.
The sheriff having returned, the commitment as his authority for detaining the petitioner in custody,
G. V. N. Lothrop and C. I. Walker, for the petitioner,
presented affidavits to substantiate the statement in the petition of the discontinuance of proceedings on the complaint. They also further introduced the same proceedings and relied upon the. same objection as in the preceding case of John Morton.
D. E. Harbaugh and A. Williams, contra,
objected to the reading of these affidavits and proceedings, and insisted further that no adjournment of the inquiry was necessary; and that it continued open.

Opinion:
The Court
allowed them to be read, and ordered the petitioner discharged; holding that the Justice obtained no jurisdiction, because the complaint did not set forth facts and circumstances, and therefore there was nothing to authorize the examination of witnesses.
Manning J.
was of opinion that the commitment was correct, and that the witnesses subpoenaed to testify in such cases could not raise the question of the sufficiency of the complaint. But he concurred in discharging Hall on the ground that the proceedings before the Justice had become discontinued, and that the commitment would not authorize an imprisonment when the prisoner could not have an opportunity to purge his contempt by answering.
Prisoner discharged.