Case ID: ala_142/html/0372-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SIMPSON, J.-", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Tillman v. Porter.
    
      Proceeding to compel Officer to Turn Over Boohs.
    
    1. Constitutional law; validity of act establishing inferior court of Bessemer. — A published notice that “a bill will be introduced in the next session of the legislature of the State of Alabama, to create and establish an inferior court in the city of Bessemer in precinct 33, Jefferson county, with both civil and criminal jurisdiction, as provided by sections 130 and 158, article 7 of the Constitution of the State,” does not state the substance of the local act passed by the legislature establishing an inferior .court of Bessemer in lieu of all justices of the peace of precinct 33 (Local Acts, 1903, p. 482); and said act establishing the inferior court of Bessemer is therefore unconstitutional and void.
    Appeal from the City Court of Bessemer.
    Tried before the Hon. William Jackson.
    The proceeding in this case was instituted by the appellee, W. F. Porter, under Section 3134 of the Code of 1896, to compel the appellant, S. J. Tillman to deliver to the petitioner certain books‘and papers pertaining to the office of the justice of precinct 33 of Jefferson county, which office was held by the respondent Tillman at the time of and after the passage of an act of the legislature to establish an inferior court in precinct 33 of Jefferson in lieu of all justices of the peace in said precinct. The petitioner pleaded that he had been duly and regularly elected to the judge of said inferior court, and that the respondent refused upon his demand to turn over to him the books and papers formerly used by him and belonging to the office of the inferior court of Bessemer. There were many motions and demurrers interposed, but under the opinion on the present appeal, it is unnecessary to set these out in detail.
    The respondent set up by special pleas that the act establishing the inferior court of Bessemer was unconstitutional and void, because said act was a local act within the meaning of the constitution, and that the notice given of the introduction of said act of the legislature was insufficient. The notice referred to was set out in the special pleas, and was in words and figures as follows: “Notice to the Public. A bill will be introduced in the next session if the Legislature of the State of Alabama, to create aud establish an inferior court at the City of Bessemer, in precinct thirty-three, Jefferson county, Avith both civil and criminal jurisdiction as provided by sections 130 and 158, Article 7, of the Constitution of the-State.”
    
      Motion was made by the petitioner to strike the special pleas from the file, and the motion was sustained. To* such ruling the respondent duly excepted. The cause was tried by the court without intervention of a jury, and a judgment was rendered in favor of the petitioner, ordering the respondent to turn over to the petitioner the books of his office.
    The respondent appeals and assigns as error the rulings of the trial court, to which exceptions were reserved.
    B. C. Jones, for appellant.
    Cited Lancaster v. (¿afford, 139 Ala. 372; Wallace v. Board of Revenue Jeff. Oo., 140 Ala. 491, 37 Sou. Rep. 321.
    W. F. Porter, contra.
    
   SIMPSON, J.-

Without going into the various points raised by the pleadings, it is evident that the Act of the Legislature (Local Acts of 1903, p. 482) being entitled “An Act to establish, in precinct 33, in Jefferson county, Alabama, an inferior court in lieu of all justices of the peace in said precinct, to be known as the Inferior Court of Bessemer, to define the jurisdiction and powers of said court and the judge thereof,” approved October, 1st, 1903, is void, by reason of a failure to comply with the provisions of the Constitution of Alabama. — Art. IY. § 106.

The act is clearly a local act, within the definition of Art. IY, § 110, and the notice given, does not state “the substance of the proposed law.” A very important part of the substance of the law, is the abolition of the office of justice of the peace, and the substitution of the proposed court therefor, which is not intimated in the notice, and the reference to sections 130 and 158, Art. 7 of the Constitution is wholly inisleading.

The judgment of the court is reversed and a judgment will be here rendered dismissing the petition, and taxing the costs against the petitioner, W. F. Porter.

Reversed and rendered.

McCrerran, C. J., Tyson and Anderson, J. J., concurring.