Court Opinion

ID: 9711104
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:24:32.516883+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:02.342178
License: Public Domain

*43O’Hara, J.
(concurring in affirmance). I concur in Mr. Justice Adams’ result. Having signed the majority opinion in People v. Holbrook, 373 Mich 94, I am obligated by Mr. Justice Black’s opinion to make my position clear. In the literal sense, “jurisdiction” relates to the person of a party litigant and the subject matter of litigation. To that extent the sentence in Holbrook:
“The justice of the peace had no jurisdiction,” (Holbrook, supra, p 99.)
was imprudently used. The better word would have been that of the statute, namely, that the proceedings were “unlawful.”
However, as Justice Adams points out in his opinion the precise point that divided the Court in Holbrook is not the issue in this case.
The question is not the effect of the failure of the prosecuting attorney to cause to be filed with the justice of the peace an order, in writing, allowing the issuance of the warrant. The question is whether what the prosecuting attorney did complied with the statutory requirement, I hold with Justice Adams :
“The preparation of a complaint by a prosecuting attorney and the filing of the same by him with the magistrate fulfills all of the purposes of the statute.”