Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1907

State ex rel. McGovern v. Williams

State ex rel. McGovern v. Williams
Wisconsin Supreme Court · Decided January 29, 1907 · Timlin, Took
130 Wis. 588; 110 N.W. 1135; 1907 Wisc. LEXIS 309

Counsel

For the respondent, in support of the motion, there was a brief by Hoyt, Doe, Umbreit & Olwell, and oral argument by A. C. Umbreit, J. B. Doe, and F. M. Hoyt., For the respondent there was also a brief by Wheeler & Ferry, and oral argument by Lyman G. Wheeler., For the relator there was a brief by the Attorney General, A. G. Titus, assistant attorney general, and by Francis B. McGovern, district attorney, and Guy D. Goff, assistant district attorney, of counsel, and oral argument by tbe Attorney General, Mr. Titus, and Mr. McGovern., For the respondent there was a brief by Hoyt, Doe, Umbreit & Olwell, and oral argument by A. G. Umbreit, F. M. Hoyt, and J. B. Doe., For the relator there was a brief by the Attorney General, A. C. Titus, assistant attorney general, and Francis E. McGovern, district attorney, and oral argument by Mr. McGovern and Mr. Titus.

State ex rel. McGovern v. Williams

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

This is an application for a peremptory writ of mandamus directed to Hon. Orren T. Williams, one of the circuit judges of Milwaukee county. It appears by the relation and the alternative writ which was issued thereon that Prank Keogh and Otis T. Hare were indicted for obtaining a certain county order by false pretenses, and that Judge Williams sustained separate demurrers to the indictment on the part of both the defendants on the ground that no offense was stated therein and discharged the defendants. Thereupon application was made to this court to exercise its power of superintending control by way of mandamus compelling Judge Williams to vacate said orders and reinstate the action and proceed with the trial thereof. An alternative writ having issued out of this court, the respondent moved to quash the same on the grounds, first, that the court is without jurisdiction, and, second, that the facts stated are not sufficient to entitle the relator to a writ of mandamus. The matter was fully argued during the January term, 1906, and a re-argument ordered, which has now been had. The six justices who participated in the hearing of both arguments are equally divided in opinion as to whether a peremptory writ should issue, and this has been the situation since the first argument took place. It is very apparent that no affirmative action in the matter *594can be taken, and that any farther attempt in that direction would be a mere waste of time. In this situation it seems that the only action that can be taken is to dismiss the proceedings.

By the Court. — Proceedings dismissed, without costs.

Timlin, J., took no part.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.