Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1871-04-19
A THEORY.
IL the ContInuation Of the Fair Trim
IiicxnlS

From the San Francisco Chronicle OF ycsterday.
Judge Dwinelle, of the Fifteenth
District Court, yesterday adjourned
Court ut an carly hour, to enable him
TO 90 over to Martinez, the county seat
of Contra Costa, and there adjourn the
..Contn Costa term" Of his Court.
And out of this action will, In all
probability. should Mrs. Fair be con-
demned, arise n question Of juriSdic-
ton. The point has already been dis
cusSed among members of the Bar,
and opinions pro and on. are eS-
pressed. The question Is: Has not the
March term Of the Fifteenth District
Court Terminated by operation of law,
and are not all further proceedings in
the Fair case null aud void? The ar
gument in support OF the affirmative OF
this proposition Is as follows: Accord
ing to the Statutes of 1865, the terms
of the Fifteenth District Court in San
Francisco shall be held on the first
Monday in March, June, September
and December; in the county Of Con-
ira Costa OH the third Tuesday Of April,
July and November. Section "a OF
the Act concerning Courts Of Justice
and judicial Officers First "llittels
Digest" page 2l4, paragraph l,25o,)
says:
MEach term shall be held until its
business l. fully disposed Of, or until
the day tired far the commencement Of
some other term in the diStric', and may
be adjourned from time to time, in the
discretion of the Court"
The third Tuesday Of April is to-
dry. and the Contra Costa term by law
commences to-day. Judge Dwiiielic
will open the Court, anu then ADJOURN
1t for the term, return 10 TINS CITY ana
proceed with the AIR trial. Inc de-
ciSion Of the California Supreme Court
in the case of Bates vs., Gage NO. 2i'ss
Is cited against the right OF 'u!se Dwl-
nellie to resume the san francesca term
OF the Court. ms case was .rleu III
SIN Joaquin county OH TIE u'y tne
term OF Court III luolumiie county
ought to have been commenced, us
fixed by law. The attorneys stipu-
lated that all objections to the JIrlsdlc-
tioa should be waived; but the defend
ant appealed. on the GROUND Una no
jurisdiction could be conferred where
1t did not cXist-in other words, That Il
stipulation could not create u Court
The Supreme Court (Temple delivering
the decision, concurrCd in by all the
Judges decided
..IIlis point IA to the stipulation Is
obviously well taken. The Court could
LEGALLY be holden OH that day in
trial was, therefore, not before n Court.
This precise point has been decided
,eyerai times in this State. (Smith vs..
Chichester. l Cal, 400; Domingues vs..
4 Cal. lS6; Norwood vs..
Kenfieid. 81 CAL, 329.) y The
st,tutr Jir.cts that each term of the
Court shall be held until its
Il fnIIv disno :cd of. or until
tbs dnv fxed for the commencement
Of some other Term In the district. nv
o]pcration of law the Court was adj
iourned prior to the trial of this cause,
and the PARTIES by their stipulation
cannot enforce jurisdiction"
1t is therefore argued that, by opera
ton of law, the time fixed for the
commencement of the Contra Costa
term having arrived, the March term
of the Fiteonth District Court in San
stands adjourned until the
first Monday in June, when another
term commences. This position seems
tenable. But I'm law there are always
two s;des m eyery o,lastion. md this IL
no exception to the rule. The Act of
March ist, 1864, to he found In the
Statutes of lS63-'G4, page lis, l. doubt
less the law upon which Judge Owl
nellie relies for support and authority
i'm adjourning the Contra Costa term
and continuing the san Francisco term.
That law il rs follows:
"Scction /. IL shall be lawful for the
District Court sitting In any county Of
this State, bv an order entered OH its
minutes, to adjourn the Court to a day