Citation Numbers: 54 Mich. 239
Judges: Campbell, Other
Filed Date: 6/19/1884
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 9/8/2022
Respondent was convicted before a justice, and sentenced to pay a fine and be imprisoned for ten days.
As it appears that the respondent was represented by counsel, and actually opposed the entry of sentence, we do not comprehend the suggestion that the motion was made ex parte.
The objections appear to us frivolous. As declared in People v. Hobson 48 Mich. 30, the justice’s judgment, when affirmed, is the one which is to be enforced. The statute provides that when it is affirmed the circuit court shall order the sentence to be executed. But this cannot preclude that court from such delays as the party may desire, to provide for appellate proceedings to this Court; neither does it put such judgments of affirmance on any worse footing than other convictions, as to the time of execution, so as to deprive that court of jm-isdiction by temporary delay. When a convicted person procures' the removal of his cause into a court of record, he comes under the practice rules of that court, and cannot invoke delays of his own procurement to get rid of that jurisdiction.
When the case went back from this Court, it went back affirmed as to the very circuit court order which is now claimed to have been illegal on grounds which would have been as good then as now. After the cause was remanded the cir
Affirmed with costs.