The State ex rel. Durner v. Huegin, in error Same, in error v. Aikens, in error Same, in error v…

Summary

The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed circuit court orders discharging Aikens, Huegin, and Hoyt from custody on habeas corpus after they were held for trial on sworn complaints charging conspiracy to wilfully and maliciously injure The Journal Company in its business under sec. 4466a, Stats. 1898. The court held that habeas corpus is a civil suit in which the sheriff is a party aggrieved entitled to be heard by counsel of his own choosing, that the policy barring private counsel in criminal cases does not extend to habeas proceedings, that the commitment charging 'the offense of conspiring to injure' satisfied the rule of convenient certainty, and that the circuit court could examine both the complaint and the evidence taken before the committing magistrate. On the merits it construed 'maliciously' as malice in law, rejected the recent English conspiracy doctrine in favor of the settled American rule that a malicious combination to injure is actionable and punishable, upheld the legislature's police power to criminalize such combinations, and concluded the complaint and evidence were sufficient to hold the defendants for trial.