Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-05-28

when the decision could be expected, and no
one knew from them what the character of it
would be- Below is given the full text of the
opinion of the Court.
1.-THE opinion discusses many points, declares
against the doctrine of any Judge jury by ordi-
nance being allowed to say what they deem Ian
guage calculated to create n breach Of the public
peace and that such doctrine infringes constitu-
tonal light and the liberty of speech 1t holds that
while the reasonableness Of the ordinance is in
doubt, its want of harmony with general State
laws is also serious question. IL holds that the
Police Court of San Francisco is an inferior Court,
and that all jursdictional facts must appear in its
records affrmatirey. 1t was the intent of the ord
nance, even if all other objections to ii be waived
that the words which constitute the oenSe shall be
uttered, not only ofanother, but in presence In
this it is not averred that the words were, ut
tered in the presence of the person denounced
Hence no CRIME committed and the prisoner
must be discharged The opinion in the original
was lberaly italicized to give emphasis to its many
points. The sub-heads given below not in the
opinion, but are ours The opinion is from the pen
Of Justice Mckinstry. All his associates concur
cept Chief Justice Morrison and Justice Myrick who
dissent.l
Ex parte Dennis kearney on habeas corpus-I -In
bank. Filed May 81, lSS0(-The Police Court of
the city and county of San Francisco is inferior
Court" of limited jurisdiction, whose powers are
conferred and whose duties and mode OF procedure
are prescribed by statute, and to which the rule ap
plies that the evidence of its proceedings must
atfrmatively show jurisdiction of the person of a
defendant and over the subject-matter The re-
mark to the contrary in eX parte Murray as Cal }
is dictum. The only question there whether
the Judgment should have shown its face the par
ticular offense of which the petitioner had been
found guilty. There Is frequently u difficulty in
ascertaining whether particular Court is is not
inferior" within the meaning of that term as used
III the books In England probably all Courts, ex-
cept the Kings at Westminster, the Kings Bench,
Court OF Bankruptcy, EXchequer and Chancery, are
treated inferior Courts. (Cowen and Hills Notes.
Phillips Ey., 4th American Ed, Vol. 81 p 1867
1t is clear that Courts invested with a general
common law jurisdiction i'll law equity are
when exercising their general jurisdiction, superior
Courts within the meaning OF the rule which
accords every presumption in favor Of the validity
OF their judgments In the United States, however,
1t has frequently been held that Court may be
limited and subordinate in its jurisc iction and vet
not be inferior Court in the sense that it ought
TO certify every thing precisely" q Saund 74) And
this will explain some of the cited by counsel
In several OF those cases it was in effect determined
that Court holding jurisdiction Of all criminal
cases should be pro ected, though it adjudee mat
ter TO be criminal which is not so, and proceed to
punish it. (Ex parte Tobias Watkins, Peters 1893
Cranch, 173.) The Circuit Court of the United
States for the District OF Columbia having been de-
termined to be superior Court with jurisdiction
over all crimes the application of the rule was not
difficult, and accordingly it was held, in ex parte
Watkins, that the judgment Of that Court twas
evidence OF its own legality requiring inspection
of the indictment which it was founded" and
the Supreme Court refused to look at the indict-
ment.
SUPERIOR AND INFERIOR COURTS
We do not forget that the only difference ordi-
narily recognized between superior and inferior
Courts is that there is a presumption in favor
former in favor of those of the lat
ter, and that superior Court may be shown
not to have had power to render particular judg-
ment by reference to its record. We only say that
in ex parte Watkins the Supreme Court of the
United States refused to look at the Indictment be-
cause the Circuit Court to be treated as
superior Court, with jurisdiction OF all crimes.
In other cases it has been held broadly by the Su-
preme Court Of the United States that the District
as well the Circuit Courts of the United States
are not inferior Courts (Hurd on Habeas Corpus
365 1t is apparent that decisions with reference TO
the conclusive presumptions arising from the judg
ments Of those Courts can have no influence upon
the question whether the Police Court shall be CON
cusively presumed to have jurisdiction to render
every judgment which il may render unless the lat
ter, ike the former, is superior Court. In ex
parte Murray (4S CALI it was said: The judgment
is one thingthe brief statement lin the minutes) of
the ofense of which the prisoner has been convicted
is different thing. The former-the de0 cOnsiderd-
tuHt est-need contain recital it is here sim ly
that the said Patrick Murray pay fine OF forty
dollars, " etc. Every recital in Judgment there
FORE to the ofense is surplusage aud if the claim
Of counsel is well founded, the judgment OF the Po.
lice Court that defendant be imprisoned deter
mines the power OF the Police Court to imprison
him IT, however, the Police Court is an inferior
Court (whatever the rule as to superior Courts) ev.
erything should appear in its proceedings necessary
to give it jurisdiction and to justify its Judgment
>Kemps Lessee VS.. Kennedy, Cranch).
IS THERE A TEST?
There is no certain test by which to determine in
all to which class superior inferior) any
III,
1t is not remarkable therefore, that there has been
SOME diversity in the application of the rule as to
to particular Courts In New York
the Surrogate Court" is held to be "inferior"
but in Pennsylvania, Maryland and Alabama the
' Orphans Court" and in Arkansas the Probate
Court" are held to be superior" In New
York the general sessions of the Peace in
the several counties held to be inferior" while
in Pennsylvania, Vermont and Connecticut a JUS
tees Court is under the rule said to be Superior"
The qu. ston to have resolved itself into one
Of public policy and whether the particular Court of
limited jurisdiction ought to have extended to its
Judgments the sanotity Of the presumptions arising
from the adjudicationS OF tribunals OF general com.
mon law jurisdiction. That the underlying and con
trolling principle upon whirh the question must be
decided is simply consideration of correct public
policy is indicated by the language employed by the
Supreme Court OF Vermont in Wright vs. Hazan
"a VT. That C0urs there ssys: 1--WE are aware
hat the decisions in New York and probably in some
other States have required the Justice to know the
acts limiting his jurisdiction at his peril But no
such rule has ever been appli to the Courts of gen
,ral jurisdiction either in Westminster Hall or in
his country; and the jurisdiction OF Justices of the
Peace has become so important. and extensive that
We incline to believe sound policy requires of us to
extend the same rule OF construction in favor of
heir jurisdiction which is done in favor Of Courts of
general jurisdiction" (Hurd on Habeas Corpus 1861
THE CALIFoRNIA RULE
This Court has never extended the rule as to pre.
in favor Of the judgments Of Courts of gen
ra jurisdiction to Courts of Justices of the Peace in
california. On the contrary such Courts in this
state, have uniformly been treated as inferior "
Courts, in favor of whose jurisdiction nothing could
DC assumed Q2 Cal, 2S3; % Id, 40l; SO Id, 3IS
Il ID, 32D. And prior to the adoption of the
amendments OF 1862 to the Constitution of S49 and
he Act OF April 90 1868, the Probate Courts in Cal
fornia always considered as of inferior and linn
ted jurisdiction, to whose records orders iudp
nents and DEGREES were accorded none OF the legal
given to those of Districts Courts in
he exercise of their more general Jurisdiction
Pryor VS.. DOwney, so ral., 1851 So far then as
analogous decisions Of this Court have gone it would
eem that the Police Court should be treated as an
Inferior Court. 1t would be strange it, while holding
he judgments OF Justices of the Peace in criminal
ases not To carry with them the presumptions ae-
orded the judgments of Superior Courts, we should
etermne that those of the Police Court exercising
jurisdiction, in far as legislative enactments are
oncerned substantially the same are to be treated
IS If rendered by Court of general jurs-
municipal Courts which would render il proper that
hey should be held to be inferior Courts The pri-
nary design OF municipal Courts, so far as they
ct under city bylaws, is to prevent disorder in
matters OF local Convenience to regulate public and
uasl public easements, etc. AS was said by Camp
ell, j., in Jackson vs.. People, 9th Mich: "The
Constitution, in apPortioDing the judicial power as
'e in affirming the immunity of life, liberty
nd property, has always been understood to guar
ntee to each citizen the right to have his title to
roperty and other legal privileges determined by
he general tribunals or the State" There the
I'd -ment of the Recorders Court on q complaint
Or violating city ordinance revised on certi.
rari. And it has been repeatedly held that this
hat the proceedings of municipal tribunal shall
e final and conclusive" or g without anpeal"
Dillon on Munic Cor, 3sSl.
WHEN HABEAs CORPUS MAY BE REsoRTED TO.
1t is not necessary to say that habeas corpus NAV
e resorted to whenever eertierari may be- but the
Jurisdiction employed by the superior CouIts by
leaDs of certiorar strongly indicates the jealousy
ntertained Of possible excess of authority on the
art Of municipal tribunals administering by laws
r prudential regulations" not extending beyond
be limits OF the municipality. The Constitution
oes not require the Legislature to provide for |
n appeal from the judgments of the Poll |
0urt to the Superior Court and il would seem that
very consideration Of sound policy requires of ,1s
treat the former Court as an inferior tribunal |
he record OF whose proceedings should afjrma |
veiy establish its power to pronounce particular
ldgment.
The Charter of San Francisco Consolidation Act |
tat 1861, p. 552) provides:
=" Section "a The Board of Supervisors shall |
ave further power by order or regulation.
leventh-To determine the fnes, forfeiturss and |
ehstlss that shall be incurred for the breach of the
equations established by said Board of Supervis |
rs and also for violation Of the provisions of this
ct when 10 penalty Is affixed thereto or Drovided /
J law But no penalty to be imposed shall exceed |