Title: STATE EX REL GOODWIN v DIST COUR

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No, 13012 I N THE SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A ex rel. FORREST GOODWIN, Relator, T H E DISTRICT C O U R T O F THE TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A i n and f o r t h e County of Fergus, and t h e H O N O R A B L E L E R O Y L. McKINNON, Presiding Judge, Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: For Rela t o r : Sandall, Cavan and Edwards, B i l l i n g s , Montana A. C l i f f o r d Edwards argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondents : William A, Spoja, County Attorney, argued, Lewistown, Montana Submitted: A p r i l 29, 1975 Decided : j ~ & 1 2 l g 5 Filed : doh! 1 1975 J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court. This is an o r i g i n a l proceeding. Relator Forrest Goodwin p e t i t i o n s f o r a w r i t of supervisory control directed t o the d i s t r j court of the tenth j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , county of Fergus, and t h e Hon. LeRoy L. McKinnon, presiding judge. Relator asks t h i s Court t o quash an order of the d i s t r i c t court t h a t reversed t h e j u s t i c e of the peace court and s e t a matter concerning violation of an ordinance of t h e town of Denton, Fergus County, Montana, f o r t r i a l i n the j u s t i c e court of Lewistown township. This Court a f t e r ex parte application s e t the matter f o r hearing and o r a l argument on April 29, 1975. After o r a l argument the matter was taken under advisement by the Court. Relator Forrest Goodwin was charged i n j u s t i c e court, Lewistown Township, Fergus County, Montana by a complaint dated November 12, 1974, with violating section 4-414, R.C.M. 1947. The complaint alleges r e l a t o r violated section 4-414 i n terms of an alleged s a l e of beer a f t e r t h e hour of 1:00 a.m., i n controvention of an ordinance of the town of Denton, Montana. d el at or's counsel f i l e d , i n the j u s t i c e court, a motion t o dismiss t h e complaint and a memo i n support thereof, on the ground t h a t the substance of the s t a t e ' s case was not an allegation of a violation of section 4-414, but r a t h e r , an allegation speaking t o a purported violation of an ordinance of the town of Denton and t h therefore, the jurisdiction s t a t u t e s of the Revised Codes of Monta c l e a r l y required t h a t the case be brought i n the name of the town of Denton and be prosecuted by t h a t town i n i t s police court. David Sather, j u s t i c e of the peace of the Lewistown town- ship, Fergus County, Montana, subsequently ordered the complaint on f i l e against r e l a t o r be dismissed on the above s t a t e d grounds. Thereafter, the Fergus county attorney appealed j u s t i c e of the peace s a t h e r ' s order t o tk d i s t r i c t court, Tenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , county of Fergus, where, a f t e r a hearing, D i s t r i c t Judgt LeRoy McKinnon reversed the judgment of the justfce r i i the peace and remanded the case t o t h e j u s t i c e court f o r .-rr 5 1.. The complaint on f i l e c l r l r l y establishes t h a t r e l a t o r was chatged v ~ t t l i i z violatiorl ri;' ;%;i ordinance of the town of Dentoi Fergus Ca!mty, :.Tort Cana : "That he the said FORREST GOODWIN did then and rhere willfully,unlawfully and wrongfully s e l l beer a t an establishment licensed under t h e Montana Beer Act, a f t e r t h e hour of 1:00 o'clock A.M., and before t h e hour of 8:00 o'clock P.M. of said day, and contrary t o the ordinances of the Town of Denton, Fergus County, Montana, so provided; said s a l e was made by an agent of the Defendant herein." (Emphasis supplied). It i s well established i n Montana law t h a t police courts a r e courts of limited jurisdiction and have such authority a s is expressly conferred upon them. S t a t e v. Tropf, ; Mont . 530 P.2d 1158, 32 St.Rep. 56, 59. Section 4-414, R.C.M. 1947, establishes the closing hours f o r licensed premises i n t h e s t a t e of Montana a s 2:00 a.m., and provides authority f o r a c i t y o r tow t o r e s t r i c t further the hours within the c i t y o r town: "* * * provided, however, when any c i t y o r incorporated o r unincorporated town has any ordinance further r e s t r i c t i n g the hours of s a l e of liquor, such r e s t r i c t e d hours s h a l l be the hours during which s a l e of liquor a t r e t a i l s h a l l not be permitted within the j u r i s d i c t i o n of any such c i t y o r town." (Emphasis supplied). The town of Denton, pursuant t o t h i s grant of authority, passed an ordinance further r e s t r i c t i n g t h e s a l e of liquor t o 1:00 a.m. Section 11-1603, R.C.M. 1947, provides i n pertinent part: I I Jurisdiction f o r violation of ordinances, and c i v i l and criminal jurisdiction. The police court a l s o has exclusive jurisdiction : "1. Of a l l proceedings f o r the violation of any ordinance of the c i t y o r town, both c i v i l and criminal. which must be prosecuted i n the name of the - - - - - c i t y o r town * * *.It ( ~ m ~ h a s i s supplied.) Here, we have an alleged violation of a c i t y ordinance which i s not a violation of the s t a t e law; the town has the auth. o r i t y t o ordain on the subject matter and has done so. The polil court i n the town of Denton, Montana has exclusive j u r i s d i c t i o n over the matter. Therefore, a w r i t s h a l l issue from t h i s Court directing the d i s t r i c t court t o quash the judgment of t h a t court which reversed the j u s t i c e of the peace court and directing t h a t the complaint be dismissed. It i s so ORDERED. ( . . J u s t i c e / / c h i e f J u s t i c e \--83 Justices. u