
    Jacoby v. Waddell.
    1. Justice’s Court: judgment of conviction : not void for irregularity. Section 4697 of the Code provides that a justice of the peace rendering a judgment of conviction against a defendant must inform him of his right to appeal; but a failure so to do does not deprive the defendant of the right to appeal, nor render the judgment void, nor entitle the defendant to a discharge on habeas corpus.
    
    
      Appeal from an Order of the Hon. Ed. R. Dujfe, Judge of the District Court of the Fourteenth Judicial District.
    
    Tuesday, June 12.
    Tiie defendant is sheriff of Sac county, and had the plaintiff in his custody under a warrant issued by a justice of the peace, committing the defendant to jail, because of his conviction of a crime by the justice of the peace. On the alleged ground that the judgment of the justice was void, that plaintiff applied for, and there was issued, a writ of habeas corpus. Upon the hearing the court refused to discharge the plaintiff, and remanded him to the custody of the sheriff. The plaintiff appeals.
    
      Charles D. Goldsmith, for appellant.
    No appearance for appellee.
   Seevers, J.

— The statute provides: • “The justice rendering a judgment against a defendant must inform him of'his right to an appeal therefrom, and make an entry on the docket of the giving of such information, and the defendant may thereupon take an appeal by giving notice orally to the justice that he appeals, and the justice must make an entry-on his docket of the giving-of such notice.” Code, §4697.

The justice failed to-inform the plaintiff of his right to an appeal, and failed to make such an entry on his docket. Be-

* cause of this omission it is said that the judgment of conviction rendered by the justice is void, and the plaintiff entitled to a discharge. The learned judge before whom the hearing on habeas corpus was had ordered that the “appeal bond be fixed at $100, in case the relator shall desire to appeal from said judgment,” and remanded the appellant to the custody of the defendant. We think the relief granted the plaintiff was all he was entitled to. The plaintiff is presumed to know the law, and he was clearly entitled to an appeal, notwithstanding the omission of the justice. . If he had expressed a desire to appeal, the justice, without doubt, would have fixed the amount of the bond. Because of the omission of the justice, the plaintiff was not deprived of any substantial right. The judgment remained in full force, although the justice failed to inform the plaintiff that he was entitled to an appeal. In principle this case is not different from Murphy v. McMillan, 59 Iowa, 515. Following that case, the order of the judge of the district court rust be

Affirmed.  