Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-01-15

the trial and conduct of such cases in that Court
Another Court in another county may adopt differen
rules and adierent practice as in its Judgment Will
best promote and protect the rights Of parties
state OF things not unlikely to occur for the law
leaves the whole subject the power of the
Courts, to be executed the Judge shall in his
Judgment deem it to be his duty Whether the in
terest OF a party who appeals to the Court for its
protection should appear from the records Of the
case made up before the Board of Supervisors and
be disclosed by his pleadings before the Board or
whether such interest may be shown by petition
or affidavit filed in Court or in the office of the.
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors or whether
the case should be tried upon the same issues
which were made before the Beard of Supervisors
as appe Is are tried taken from the Justices Courts
on questions oil both law and fact or whether new
issues may be made up in the Superior Court which
were not passed upon by the Board of Supervisors
or otherwise, all these and many other questions of
practice, II to be regulated by rules of the Courts
not unlikely to be different in different Counties
according the Judges of those Courts should diff
fer in their views of the practice which should govern
the trial OF such cases The result would be that to
the benefits of the Act providing for the or
ganization of swamp land reclamation Districts
to procure lands to be set off from district the
practice would differ in different districts situate in
different counties. And the law although general
in ITS nature and Objects would not have uniform
operation result which could not have been in
tended by the Legislature. It would seem to be
more consistent with the language used in the whole
Act that the intention was TO allow an appeal from
the orders named in the Act to the Superior Court
and that the Court should dispose of the case
appeal. This construction is in harmony with
the object OF the Act expressed in its
title. The Constitution, Article ~, Section p,
SAYS Every Act shall embrace but one sub
jec which subject shall Re expressed in its title:
but if any subject shall be embr ced in Act which
shall not be expressed in its title, such Act shall be
void only to so much thereof as shall not be ex-
pressed III its title
If this Act be interpreted allowing appeal, it
is consistent with the subject expressed in its title
IT. on the oth.r hand, it be construed TO affect q
Sansfer of the from the Board of supervisors to
the Superior Court for trial there original pro-
ceedng and that the Act be deemed Incorporated
jecJ Of the formation Of reclamation districts, neither
the title of the Act the language used in the Act
would seem to express the object intended.
Ii this statute could be upheld aud was capable of
being construed as to give this Court jurisdiction
Of the proceedings a special case or proceeding,
with authority to try and determine it under and
by virtue OF the general and original jurisdiction OF
the Court, without violating well-establlShed rules
OF construction of statutes it is conceive the duty
ofthe Court to give it such construction; but if,
the contrary it clearly and PROFESSIONALLY appears
from the statute that is appellate jurisdiction and
not original jurisdiction that is given and intended
90 he given it is the duty of the Court to declare,
and give the statute that effect which was in
tended by its passage.
My conclusion is that the Act provides for an
appeal, and that it was intended to i've appellate
aud not original iuris teton to the Superior Courts
in the cases namsd in it. The Act Tor that reason
is in conflict with the Constitution, and void
1t follows that the motion TO dismiss this appeal
must be granted for the that this Court has
no appellate jurisdiction to hear and determine the
case.
1t is ordered that the appeal be dismissed on the
ground that this Court has appellate jurisdiction
in this case THOMAS a. BROWN,
Judge OF the Superior Court Of Contra Costa county,
presiding Judge.