The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1880-08-18
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
Reported for The Clarion by L Brsne, Attor-
ney-at-Law. Jackson. Miss
APRIL TERM, 1850.
john W. CRIsLER, ct. al.

I N, 4. I
No. 1854
FARRAk MORRISON,
Error to the circuit court Of Kinds County
I Hon. 5. 5. Calhoon Judge.
/ Crisler aud Morrison were opposing candi
dates for the office of sheriff a the election o
Nov. 4th 1879. The registrars returned Nor
rison as elected.
| The law required contests as 10 county Off
ces to be commenced within twenty days aftel
f! the election. On the I'D OF Nov Crisler hlet
his petition before justice of the peace t,
contest the election. But the summons u
Morrison was not issued until Nov 9th on
the return day, Dec. u, after jury was i'm
| paneled before the justice to try the case, Nor
rison sued oat writ of prohibition on thS
ground that the summons was not issued with
in twenty days, and therefore the justice had
no jurisdiction
In the circuit court to which the writ Of pro-
hibition was returnable, Cris1er moved to COM
pei Morrison 10 file s declaration, which was
overruled. He then moved 10 dismiss the writ
of prohibition, which was also overruled, and,
on motion OF Morrison, the writ was made alb
soIute.
Crisler ami the justice prosecuted this writ
Of error.
GEORGE, {. ].
Held
l. The powers Of justice of the peace, and
Of the tribunal organized by him in an cleo
ton cOnUcot, -t'vSi~l aal Emitel The
statute must be strictly complied with.
The object Of the statute Acts 1878, %. 113 }
TO secure speedy trial in such cases, that
il might be determined who was elected before
the first Monday in January following, when
the term of office begins. The state was iu-
terested in this, and not merely the parties
contesting. The legislature intended not onl v
that the petition should be filed, but that the
summons should be issued within the twenty
days prescribed
2 The failure to issue the summons in pro-
per time pria9d fdcte establishes the want of
Jurisdiction. The effect of this could only be
avoided by the contestant on proof that the
delay was not the result of his consent neg
hgence.
3. The object of the writ of prohibition is
not only 10 prevent courts from usurping
jurisdiction not conferred by law. but il will
lie against pretended court which is usurp
ing Jurisdiction
T. Even if it is conceded that this tribunal
had enough Of colorado judicial authority to
authorize 1t to grant an appeal. that was no
reason why the writ Of prohibition should
have been denied. In clear of usurpa-
ton like this, the courts have refused to con-
slider the right of appeal as reason for deny
ing the writ.
s. On the record as it stood in the circuit
court, the tribunal was clearly without juris
diction, hence a declaration was not neces-
sary, and ii proper for the court 10 dis
pose of the case by motion. The reasons for
declaration in all such cases at
law do not exist in this state
If the point on the law or facts had been
nice or doubtful declaration would have
been necessary. The only office of a declara-
ton under system is to determine dis
puted question of fact. AFFIRMED.
J. W Jenkins and H. R. Ware for plaintiffs
in error.
Nugent & McWillie, Contra.