
    The State ex rel. McGovern, District Attorney, Appellant, vs. Williams, Circuit Judge, Respondent.
    
      January 14
    
    January 29, 1907.
    
    
      Affirmance on equal division.
    
    Mandamus to Orren T. Williams, Judge of the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County.
    
      Dismissed.
    
    On March 20, 1906, the cause was argued on motion to quash the writ.
    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.
    
    They contended, inter alia, that the supreme court is without jurisdiction to issue the peremptory writ prayed for unless under and in accordance with an express statute. Fx parte Burtis, 103 U. S. 238; U. 8. v. Lawrence, 3 Dali. 42; U. 8. v. Peters, 5 Cranch, 115; Life & F. Ins. Go. v. Wilson, 8 Pet. 291; Kendall v. U. 8. 12 Pet. 524; Decatur v. Paulding, 14 Pet. 497; U. 8. ex rel. Orawford v. Addison, 22 ITow. 174; Fx parte Milwaukee B. Go. 5 Wall. 188; Fx parte Newmrn-, 14 Wall. 152; Fx parte Loring, 94 U. S. 418; Fx parte Flippin, 94 U. S. 348; Fx pmte Brown, 116 U. S. 401; U. 8. v. Sanges, 144 U. S. 310; State v. Jones, 7 Ga. 422; People v. Corning, 2 N. Y. 9; Gomm. v. Reynolds, 4 Hayw. 110; Comm. v. Harrison, 2 Va. Oas. 202; State v. Burns, 18 Ela. 185; State v. Copeland, 65 Mo. 497; People v. Royal, 2 Ill. 557. Tbe alternative writ does not state facts sufficient to entitle tbe relator to any relief. Tbe writ embodying tbe petition, and not tbe petition itself, is tbe complaint. State ex rel. G. B. & M. B. Go. v. Jennings, 56 Wis. 113; Johnson v. Smith, 64 Ind. 275; Board of ComnVrs v. State ex rel. Lewis, 61 Ind. 75, 81; State ex rel. Oothren v. Lean, 9 Wis. 279, 290; Hambleton v. Dexter, 89 Mo. 188, 190; State ex rel. Hathaway v. Board of Health, 103 Mo. 22; Johnes v. Auditor, 4 Obio St. 493.
    For the respondent there was also a brief by Wheeler & Ferry, and oral argument by Lyman G. Wheeler.
    
    They contended, inter alia, that, even if tbe appellate court should direct tbe trial court to vacate tbe order in question, there was nevertheless no way for tbe trial court to lawfully bring tbe' defendants again before it, as they bad been discharged. State ex rel. Gold v. Secrist, 33 Minn. 381, 23 N. W. 545; Slate v. Granville, 45-Obio St. 264; People v. Stacy, 34 Oal. 307.
    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.
    
    They contended, inter alia, that tbe supreme court, under tbe constitution, has power to exercise superintending control over a circuit court at tbe request of the state, under proper circumstances, in a criminal case. Tbe relief prayed for has been exercised in other states. Tbe discharge of tbe defendants is not an acquittal, they have-not been in jeopardy, and a writ of mandamus will lie. Luton v. Circuit Judge, 69 Mich. 610; Grand Bapids v. Brandy, 105 Mich. 670; State ex rel. Bayha v. Philips, 97 Mo. 331; Swift v. Wayne Circuit Judges, 64 Mich. 479 ; People ex reL Bobison v. Swift, 59 Mich. 529, 26 N. W. 694; Louisell v. Benzie Circuit Judge, 139 Mich. 40, 102 N. W. 371; Clute v. Circuit Judge, 139 Mich. 337, 102 N. W. 843; Hill v. Morgan, 9 Idaho, 718, 76 Pac. 323, 326; State ex rel. Smith 
      
      v. Smith, 69 Obio St. 196, 68 N. E. 1044; State ex rel. Shannon v. Hunter, 3 Wasb. 92; State ex rel. Harris v. Laughlin, 75 Mo...358; People ex rel. Goberly v. Scales, 3 Scam. 351; Grane v. Saginaw Gircuit Judge, 111 Micb. 496; State ex rel. Keane v. Murphy, 19 Nev. 89, 6 Pac. 840; Queen v. Justices ■of Middlesex, 2 Q. B. Div. 516; Quimba Appo v. People, 20 N. T. 531; McCreary v. Rogers, 35 Ark. 298, 301; Gomto. v. Ealph, 111 Pa. St. 365 ; In re Parsons, 150 U. S. 150; In re Rice, 155 U. S'. 396; Bob v. Slate, 2 Yerg. 173; State ex rel. New Orleans v. Judge of Givil Disl. Gouri, 52 La. Abu. 1275; Havemeyer v. Superior Gourt, 84 Cal. 327; Hensley v. Superior Gourt, 111 Oal. 541; Detroit v. Wayne Gircuit Judge, 79 Micb. 384, 44 N. W. 622; People ex rel. E. II. é Or. R. Go. v. Judge, 31 Micb. 456; Tawas & B. G. R. Go. v. Circuit Judge, 44 Micb. 479; Maclean v. Gircuit Jxdge, 52 Micb. 257; H. T. Barnum W. & I. Works v. Speed', 59 Micb. 272; Van Norman v. Gircuit Jtdge, 45 Micb. 204; Pennington v. Woolf oik, 79 Ky. 13; Benners v. State, 124 Ala. 97; Ex parte Barnes, 84 Ala. 540; Ex parte Haralson, 75 Ala. 543; State v. Hart, 19 Utab, 438; State ■ex rel. Fourth Nat. Bank v. Johnson, 103 Wis. 591, 51 L. R. A. 33.
    Tbe cause was re-argu.ed January 14, 1907.
    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.
    
    They contended, inter alia, that tbe overwhelming weight of authority is against tbe procedure here invoked. Stale v. Agee, 83 Ala. 110; Strong v. Grant, 99 Oal. 100; Cariaga v. Dryden, 29 Oal. 307; People ex rel. Wheaton v. Weston, 28 Cal. 639; Lewis v. Barclay, 35 Gal. 213; People v. Sexton, 37 Cal. 532; Scott v. Superior Gourt, 75 Oal. 114; Wheley v. King, 92 Cal. 431; People ex rel. Gesford v. Superior Gourt, 114 Oal. 466; Kerr v. Superior Gourt, 130 Oal. 183-; People ex rel. Sayer v. Garnett, 130 Ill. 340; Bailey v. Ewart, 52 Iowa, 111; State ex rel. v. 
      ..Norton, 20 Kan. 506; Si. Louis & S. F. B. Co. v. Shinn, 60 Kan. Ill; Blair v. McCann, 23 Ky. Law Eep. 1226; Cas-sidy v. Young, 92 Ky. 227; Wells v. Thomas, 72 Md. 26; Gray v. Bridge, 11 Pick. 189; Gibbs v. County Comm’rs, 19 Pick. 298; State ex rel. Treadway v. Wright, 4 Kev. 119; ■State ex rel. Combination Co. v. Curler, 4 Key. 445; Nevada Cent. B. Co. v. District Court, 21 Kev. 409; State ex rel. 0. ■S. Mfg. Co. v. Curler, 26 Kev. 347; Sinnickson v. Corwine, 26 K. J. Law, 311; State ex rel. Mooney v. Edioards, 51 K. J. Law, 479; Ex parte Ostrander, 1 Denio, 679; Ex parte Bassett, 2 Cow. 458; Ex parte Johnson, 3 Cow. 371; People ■ex rel. Legg v. Onondaga C. P. 8 Wend. 509; Hutchinson v. ■Comm’rs, 25 Wend. 692; People ex rel. Snow v. Cayuga C. P. 10 Wend. 632; People ex rel. Doughty v. Dutchess G. P. 20 Wend. 658; Weeden v. Town Council, 9 E. I. 128; Eubank v. Broughton, 98 Ya. 499; Thurston v. Hudgins, 93 Ya. 780; Boberts v. Paul, 50 W. Ya. 528; Fleshman v. McWhorter, 54 W. Ya. 161; State ex rel. Liggins v. Judges, 47 La. Ann. 1516; State ex rel. Hyatt v. Smith, 105 Mo. 6; Slate ex rel. South St. Joseph T. Co. v. Mosman, 112 Mo. App. 540; State ■ex rel. Ati’y Gen. v. District Court, 13 K. Dak. 211, 100 K. W. 248; Ex parte Newman, 14 Wall. 152; In re Key, 189 TJ. S. 84; Am. C. Co. v. J., T. & K. W. B. Co. 148 U. S. 372; TJ. S. expel. Harless v. Judges, 85 Eed. 177; Ex pcurte Lewis, 21 Q. P. Div. 191, 192; Beg. v. Justices of Yorkshire (Ex parte Gill), 53 L. T. Eep. 728; Beg. v. Sheil, 50 L. T. Eep. 590; State v. Kemp, 17 Wis. 669; TJ. S. v. Salter, 1 Pin. 278; Milwaukee v. Weiss, 93 Wis. 653; Von Pueden v. State, •'96 Wis. 671, 676; State ex rel. McCaslin v. Smith, 65 Wis. "93; State v. Grotthau, 73 Wis. 589; Wright v. Wright, 74 Wis. 439; State ex rel. Pfeiffer v. Taylor, 19 Wis. 566; In re Bice, 155 TJ. 9. 396.
    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. McGov
      
      ern and Mr. Titus.
    
    Tbey contended, inter alia, tbat under tbe provisions of sec. 3, art. VII, Const., tbe supreme court bas power to set aside tbe erroneous order of tbe circuit judge quashing tbe indictment and discharging tbe defendants, and to direct him to reinstate tbe case and proceed with tbe trial according to tbe usual practice of circuit courts in Wisconsin. State ex rel. Fourth Nat. Bank v. Johnson, 103 Wis. 591, 607; State ex rel. Fourth Nat. Bank v. Johnson, 105 Wis. 164, 176; State ex rel. Spence v. Dick, 103 Wis. 407, 409^ In re Pierce, 44 Wis. 411, 442-444, 456; Norris v. Clink-scales, 47 S. C. 488, 25 S. E. 797; Goodwin v. Prime, 92 Me. 355, 42 Atl. 785, 787; State v. Wood, 23 N. J. Law, 560; Os-horn v. U. S. Bank, 9 Wheat. 738, 966 ; State v. Cummins, 30 Mo. 263, 278; State ex rel. Atfy Gen. v. Brunot, 104 La. 237; People ex rel. Hamilton v. Barnes, 66 Cal. 594; Camilo-Temple v. Superior Court, 70 Cal. 211; Cahill v. Superior Court, 145 Cal. 42, 46; Ex parte Alabama, 115 Ala. 123 ^ Ex parte Jones, 133 Ala. 212; State ex rel. Smith v. Pitt's, 139 Ala. 152; State ex rel. Schütz v. Williams, 127 Wis. 236, 106 N. W. 286. No principle of law or recognized rule of procedure will be violated, superseded, or infringed by making tbe writ absolute. 2 Andrews’ Cooley’s Blackstone, 1479, note; Peg. v. Faderman, 4 Cox Crim. Law Cas. 359; Wharf. Crim. PI. & Pr. (9th ed.) § 404; 1 Bishop, New Crim. Proc. § 784; State v. Barrett, 54 Ind. 434; Thomas v. State, 6 Mo. 457; State v. Polk, 91 N. C. 652; secs. 4609, 4612, 4639, 4645, Stats. 1898; People v. Bringard, 39 Mich. 22; Queen, v. Brown, 7 El. & Bl. 757; Queen v. Pilkington, 2 El. & Bl. 546; Queen v. Adamson, 1 Q. B. Div. 201; State ex rel.. Fourth Nat. Bank v. Johnson, 103 Wis. 591, 623; Merrill, Mandamus, § 40; State ex rel. Buchanan v. Kellogg, 95 Wis. 672; State ex rel. Keane v. Murphy, 19 Nev. 89, 6 Pac. 840 ;■ Hill v. Morgan, 9 Idaho, 718, 76 Pac. 323; Board of Comm’rs-v. Mayheiv, 5 Idaho, 572, 51 Pac. 411; People ex rel. Iloise-v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 22 Mich. 493; People ex rel. Bohi-
      son v. Swift, 59 Mich. 529, 26 N. W. 694; State ex rel. Shannon v. Hunter, 3 Wash.- 92, 27 Pac. 1076; Bx parte Bradstreet, 7 Pet. 634; Barker, Petitioner, 131 U. S. 221; Harrington v. Holler, 111 U. S. 796; State ex rel. Durner v. Huegin, 110 Wis. 189; People v. Martin, 1 Park. Grim. Rep. 187; sec. 7, art. I, Const.; Rowan v. State, 30 Wis. 129, 144; In re Bergin, 31 Wis. 383; State ex rel. Milwaukee v. Newman, 96 Wis. 258, 272, 273; Schaeffer v. State, 113 Wis. 595; Douglass v. State, 3 Wis. 820; Brosde v. Sanderson, 86 Wis. 368; Terrell v. •Superior Court, 127 Oal. xviii, 60 Pac. 38; Comm. v. Adams, 92 Ky. 134, 17 S. W. 276,i
   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 can 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.  