The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1866-09-27
County Courts.

/
we're structures have lately appeared in
your columns upon the County Courts.
SO far, only one side has therein been
represented. Up to this time, the pro-
cceding has been er paste. This is not
fair; nor can Il fair Judgment be given
upon such trial, propose now to
put in plea for the Court, so that
both sides can he heard, and a Just
decision awarded; and, in this, |
pledge myself to be brief; and that my
statements shall be suggestive, rather
than exhaustive
County Courts are no new institu
ton. In Connecticut and Virginia.
and several Of the Western States.
they have been established for many
years and have very nearly the same
Jurisdiction and procedure that they
now have in this State They have
also in Georgia, Alabama and Louis.
lana, and some other of the Southern
States, been recently established. SO
far they have worked well everywhere,
outside Of Mississippi. No complaint
has been heard And in Mississippi,
perhaps the complaint against them is
founded rather upon the prejudice
that MR. institutions provoke, than upon
any reasonable and sufficient grounds.
The arguments presented against
the County Court are mcagre and
feeble None of them can can stand
the test of facts or analysis. But few
are likely to be imposed upon by them.
Even the writer's themselves seem to
have no confidence in them. Like all
other new institutions, the County
Court has to contend with prejudice
and prejudice nor is the only enemy it
has in the field. Reason and expe-
liency are its warmcst allies.
Some contend that the County |
Court is unconstitutional These, we
suppose, have never read
he amendments of the Convention Of
August, 1865, If they will take the
aims TO read these amendments of the |
Constitution, they will there find that
he Legislature is therein authorized
md required to establish Courts off
Inferior jurisdiction; and even the
grounds Of jurisdiction are specified.
30 the Legislature has done nothing
more than exercise and perform the
uthority and duty thus upon it gran
ed and imposed.
Furthermore, it is contended that it
; unconstitutional for the Probate
Judge to exercise the functions of the
'ounty Court Judge. These say, the
rebate Judge has only Probate iuris-
lotion and is elected for this purpose
lone by the people. Now, no clause
A the Constitution, nor principle in
NV, can be found, which forbids the
such functions upon the
rebate Judge, Until such clause
+ principle can be found. no one can
ruly assert that the comforting of
uch functions upon the Probate Judge
! unconstitutional or unlawful Fur
ler the bestowment of distinct iur
'dctions and duties on one person is
ommon practice in this State. One
lstance only need be given. The iur-
,dictions of the Circuit Court and the
hancery Court are apart distinct aad
yet, in this State, one
crson exercises both-one person is
9th Circuit Judge and Chancellor
Thy thus may not n Probate Judge ,
e both Probate Judge and County
ourt Judgey Again; 1t is said the
rebate Judge is only elected by the
nople to exercise Probate jurisdiction. {
his ground can avail nothing as to
Ie future: for at the next October
ection, all Probate Judges viii be F.
ected with the view of thus exercis-
Q thereafter all the functions Of a
idge Of the County Court
Again others saw the County Court
too expensive. Well, let MS look at
e facts. 1t msy be presumed the
ses tried in the County Court would
J tried anyhow; and would, other g
se, be tried in the Circuit Court In n
e Circuit Court there are two juries n
the County Court but one. So the /
" expense in the Circuit Court, is n
sbic that in the County Court. The q
ms Of Circuit Courts are fires times \