Burlington hawk-eye. [volume] (Burlington, Iowa) 1845-185?, 1851-11-20
N A. n. ca,rt n tho Case .: County Judge.


Opiaion Of Tho Ceurt In the Case Q: County Judge.
We noticed ia last weeks paper that The 'sin-
formation, filed against Judge Black, claiming
that he had usurped the Office Of Board Of Com
missioners and Judge Of Probate, had been de-
cided in his favor, we had not time before our pa
per went to press Of giving the op.non OF the
Court we subjoin il below:
State OF Iowa on the relation
Of Ezra Drown Prosecuting
Atty, Of Jefferson Comfy finformGioa.
Moses Black.
The information in this case charged the de-
PENDANT with ua.awfuily holding the offce OF
Judge OF Probate Of Jefferson County.
II IS admitted that the I,feniant was duly
elected County Judge Of sad county at the last
AUGUST election and was duly qualified as such
officer, and that in the discharge o. his aale' as
County Judge he discharged the duties hereto-
fore pertaining to the Office OF Judge OF Probate,
and that the oa!y question in issue is whether
the ..Cole Of Iowa' took effect on The first day
Of July last, or sahsel tent thereto; and this
question the reator ins s,ed he had right to Try
BY jury, the court sitting as jury, anu oiereS
to produce witnesses in court upoa s;icii issae.
By the Court. Tie court IS presumed 10
Know the law anu ii ia DOUBT upon qaaston Ok
this nature. the Cart msy, and sndeed should
seek information from snch So frees as II any
deem worthy OF credit Bat W. hardly n red 4 Id
that il is unusual to make up al issae upoa the
question and enlightened tho mud ortae Court
by the Verdict OF Petit jury.
We are unable to discover an reason why tie
question oe swhat is the Statute law OF our ) ate"
should not be determined in the SANE inaaner as
the question of "waat IS the common law a
person is presumed to be inaoeeat ult.l proven
TO be guilty." is principle OF comnoa law. II
suppose some slitos shoali deay It, sao I'D he
have his issue TO try the question before the
court or jury? Tbs viii b. hardly coa'cnded.
1t IS true as urged that in this case, it is, IN one
sense, and perhaps in every sense, a question OF
fact, and that fact IS when was the CD, distflb-
uted? So il is question OF fact as to what is,
or is not, am established principle of Counoa law.
Now we hold that in both these cases, the coat
must take il upoa itself 10 determine what is and
what is not law. Let us 70. none mt consider
the cOnseQu .nces that would inevitably follow the
adoption Of the method argued b. the relator in
this case. Suppose that IN the trial OF the case at
bar, the testimony which has been snilstrio tslv
gathered by the relator shout. satisfy the m.ad OF
the court or the jury that tn. Code was not $.
trlbutcd as required By law, on the first day of
July. we suppose Of course il viii b. argued thai
therefore Il would bee me the day OF the Court
to beside that the same was not then in force
The next case was clllel and in thattae same l,es-
ton arises In this case the respondent has been
vigilant and has procured an oant OF testimony
that fully satisfies the mini OF the court, or jury
that the code was then distributed. In such case
it woald OF course be jast as clearly the duty of
the court to declare the law in force, ana SO you
may proceed a. iajfa.am Suppose these eases
70 10 the S,prcm. Court, the evidence m,st be
embodied in bill of exceptions aud 30 up, and
that court may ssmetimas affirm and sometimes
reverse the decisions mile ~ the court below
But does this aid in the settlement OF the qtestoa
Surely not. We then repeattae court ms. know
the law aud that knowledge must no be b,sed
upon the greater amolnt OF evidence ihla his less
acute and yigilant opponent.
Acting then upon all the information of relia-
BILE character that we have obtained we mold that
the laws contained IN the Cole were on the first
day Of july last the laws OF Iowa. IL this is so
the respondent in this case rigatfally discharges
the duties heretofore pertaining to the Office OF
Judge Of Probate, and this being the oaly question
involved in the issue we are Of opinion the re-
spondent is not guilty as caarsed.-I Fairfield
Ledger,