Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1882-01-06
Important Decision Concerning Jus,
ffceaS Courts In Savannah

tfces' Courts in Savannah.
Have our city Justices OF the Peace and
ex oficio Justices of the Peace complied
with the law since July 81, 1879, as to the
time and place of holding their courts? 1t
would seem from perusal of the case be-
low, just decided, that some of them have
not, and the consequences of their error
remain yet to be seen, and may be of some
moment to litigants in their courts.
OPINION SUPREME COURT OF GEoRGIA-sEP-
TENDER TERM, 1881.
Henry johnson, plaintiff in error, VS.. John
H. Hoffman, defendant in error.
CRAWFORD, j., delivering the opinion.
The single question controlling this case
is whether a judgment rendered by No
tary Public and ex-cff1cio Jus ice of the
Peace for the Second district G. NJ, the
same being In the city of Savannah, at an
other place than that fixed by the Ordinary
of said county, is a legal and valid judg-
ment.
Section 1862 of the Code declares that all
judgments rendered in any civil cause else
where than at the place for holding the JUS
tices Courts for the district shall be void.
But It is claimed that the Justices Courts
for the city Of Savannah do not fall within
the provisions of the general law on this
oubJbCbs OC4OlO buO OOublllubIOu VI lCOO,
by the general law Of the State, there was
only one Justices Court held for each dis
trict, and that was at one particular place
and specified time in each month.
After the adoption of the constitution of
1868 that system was changed, and the
Justices we're authorized to hold their courts
at their pleasure for the trial of cases. See
section Code 5104. The constitution of 1877
provided for the restoration of the old svs-
tQm and the act Of the T.ntrf To- Vtro Of T1lv
1872 carried the constitutional provision
into effect by re-ests 0lishing it, and repeal
ing all laws, general or local, which were
in conflict Herewith. See Tarpley VS.. Cor
put, February term, 1880, not vet reported
See also acts 1889, .. 81.
It is, however, insisted that the general
law did not apply to the city of Savannah
Perhaps after the local act of 1854 it did
not, but the Constitution of 1877 not only
provided as above noted, but further provi-
ded by Article 6, section 9, and paragraph
l, that the Jurisdiction, powers, proceedings
and practice of all OOa;TtS or officers in0eSted
aOlth judicial pOgerS Except City Courts of
the same grade or class should be uniform,
and that this uniformity must be estab-
lished by the General Assembly. This uni
formity has been provided for by the act
aforesaid.
1t is further commended that this Judgment
was ndered at the legally appointed place
designated by the Ordinary of the county.
An examination of the order Of the
Ordinary does not show clear designation
of this place as The one for holding of the
Justices Courts for the I'd District, @. NJ, of
Chatham county, whilst the order passed
upon the application of the other Magistrate
does. There being no error, the judgment
is affirmed.
True extract from the minutes.
D HARRISON, Clerk s c., Ga.
Argued ia the Supreme Court by Messrs.
A. P. & s. B. Adams, for plaintiff in error,
and by Mr.. r. R. Richards, for defendant
In error.