
    PEOPLE v. MELOVICZ.
    Criminal Law — Appeal and Error — Where Judgment Satisfied by Payment of Pine Writ of Error Performs No Function.
    Where the sentence for violation of the prohibition law was alternative, fine or imprisonment, and the fine was paid at the time the writ of error was sued out, the judgment was satisfied by the voluntary payment of the fine, and the writ has no function to perform.
    Error to recorder’s court of Detroit; Faust (John), J.
    Submitted January 12, 1923.
    (Docket No. 141.)
    Decided March 22, 1923.
    Robert Melovicz was convicted of violating the liquor law, and sentenced to pay a fine of $250 or to imprisonment for 60 days in the Detroit house of correction.
    The fine having been paid, the writ of error is dismissed.
    
      
      Samuel Shapero (Harold M. Shapero, of counsel), for appellant.
    
      Andrew B. Dougherty, Attorney General, Paul W. Voorhies, Prosecuting Attorney, and Harry S. Toy, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the, people.
   Fellows, J.

Defendant was convicted of a violation of the prohibition law and was sentenced in the alternative to pay a fine of $250 or to be confined in the Detroit house of correction for a period of 60 days. He paid the fine' and thereafter sued out this writ of error. In the recent case of People v. Ortwski, 220 Mich. 462, a similar situation was presented. We there held that the judgment having been satisfied by voluntary payment, the writ of error performed no function. That case is controlling here.. The writ of error must be dismissed.

Wiest, C. J., and McDonald, Clark, Bird, Sharpe;. Moore, and Steere, JJ., concurred.  