, 1881-10-09

tainly the General Assembly cannot increase,
alter or mo4if t r n fat tody
limited TO providing for" or establish,
in:s y PROBATE Courts in counties having a
population Of 81, ,000, and that the trainers OIL
the Constitution intended that no otner pow
parent from the language. Of Sec Is OF Of ti1e the
same article, By which jurisdiction OF tue
County Court is defined. In that SECTION ]u-
risdiction is conferred in almost tne same
tion provides that '.suth other jurisdiction
might be conferred OH the County Courts as
should be provided for By genera nw. ~
such provision can anywhere De 1Qul1!t ~
the Constitution with re1e5enEe do ~ the
Constitution: declined to vest, even IN tne
General Assembly, the power to 1ntef1ere
with tile Jurisdiction which was conferred
BY the Constitution on the Probate ConrIs.
Now. under the Constitution, the t;enefat {. e;t
Assembly of 1877, Judging, and rightly, that
the analogous clause conferrlng. Jurisdictlon
OIL the County Court did not give }utlsuic-
tion to sell lands Of minors, passed q iaW coil
ferrne such 5he cqnGty ~ Court In n
and Us amended in 1877 tflurd st. Ed: lsso, f.:
that the guardian give d bond before the court
makes an order From this 1t Is CLEAR tnat tn9
members of tho Legislature OF 1S'2 who enHcteo
that that = ali matters Of probute" did not confer
Jurisdiction on tho County Court, to seE ttne tae
eeftany eepdf y Kali IN pro6atc matters would not in
Glide such jurisdiction,
The only language Of the conztitution ~ under
which jurisdiction is claimed Is that which con. :,
II this claim Is seriously made. II simply lnol-
Gates either that those who make it are lgaorant
lawyers ai over the world, or that they willfully
shut their eyes to that meaning Tho word pro,
bate, from l'rob"tHs: to prove or PROOF, IS useq
simply and only with reference to the pTocJ OF
last wills ami testamcnts. 1t means the proof
of will, the jurisdiction to admit a Will to pro
bate or proof 1t is thus defined in "eosters
Unabridged:
f. s9d oaeF x e M s
@ Z: ths s seEs!S
e1ecnton Of i b the executor z The iea .Eht at e
probate Of wills. ~O''
| From what has already been said It seems that
1t wsuld he useless to further discuss The prop,
osttion that the words :" in all probate matters
do not confer jurisdiction TO sell the lands OF IN
| the jurisdiction could be made and one OF them
| may be briefly stated. Lawmakers are pre-
| su1ncd to observe the ordinary rules OF gram
mar, and not to be guilty Of repetition or tau
! tology. They are, when their language comes
to be construed by the courts, treated Us sensi-
bic and Intelligent men. ana every word which
they have enacted is held to have meaning and
| to be necessary to the proper construction OF
the Inv under consideration. It would meyer be
fences were only repetition of the
| first sentence. Now, for the sake OF the argu-
t ncnt, conceda the words "al probate matters !"
include the Jurisdiction to sell the PROPERTY OF
| an infaut or An insane person. would not the
same words, fortforf, include all other matters
! Of jurisdiction conferred upon the probate
courts? 1t is certainly clear that in the opinion
| Of the trainers OF the Constitution, the words
| - all probate matters Gid not include the "set-
tlement Of estates,S the = appointment OF
guardians and conseEYatoTs," ana settlement
l +ioo1 sur71A 1T1tf
| estate OF deceased persons for the payment Of
debts" Why, it may be usked. was 1t necessary
for the frnmcrs of the Constitutlou7 to be guilty
of repetition and tautology? Could they be-
| not have omitted to authorize the
persons, but only to pay debts? And il they
thought that that was 4 subject not included 10
"ail probate matters" is it not clear that they
also thought that sales b. order of the Court IN
cases of minors and persons Of unsound minds
were not included IN those words2 Tho Language
Of The Constitution comforting 5uTtsdtctop M d. 81 9n
and is as follows:
Jurisdiction Of iii matters OF probate, sattenent q
estates q decreased persons aPno!ntmsat of 1 Eaas
counts, nll matters relating to apprentices and
proceedings for the collection OF taxes ana assess
ed for 81 S Sensla; sasa law. tH1Ta ssnt i, u 81
No such language is used In regard to Probate
Courts The only case reported Is that OF tn
People ex rel Otis vs.. Loonts- e6 ILL.,, 31t. Tht
WIS proceeding for mandamus against Judg'
Loom1s and Dir. klokke, Clerk Of the Count.
Court, requiring the CLERK to receive and th'
;. Judge to hear and determine a petition for tn
foreclosure OF a mortgage made by q guardian
| In 1873. The Supreme Court Judge Diekey de
uYerinE the opinion on p. $40, after reading tn