St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1885-01-07
Supreme Court.
OPINIONS.


TIE state of Minnesota ex raj L. II. Ne
Kusick, relator, VS.. A. Peers and H. P. Ro-
bic Us justices of the peace in and for the
county Of Chisago, Minnesota, respondents
Syilabus-The judiciary has no control or
supervision over the action Of the two JUS
tees named to take testimony in case OF
contest as 10 an election to either house
of the legislature, under sections 40, so and
81, chapter l, general statutes, 1878, and
the writ Of prohibition will not issue to re
strain them from taking the testimony.
They cannot require public officers to pro-
duce before them public records in their Gus
toby.
Writ dismissed. GlLFrLAN, {. J.
FULL DECISION.
The constitution section 3, article Il
makes each house Judge "of the election re-
turns and eligibility Of its own members"
Under this, not only must each house deter
mine, in case Of a contest, vino is elected TO
be member, but must determine upon
what evidence il will decide the question and
how it will procure such evidence
over the proceedings the judiciary
has no control, and could not
have without treuching on the independence
',
contest Is taken, as provided by sections 40,
so and 81, chapter l, general statutes, 1873,
il is for the house TO which it is sent and not
for the courts TO decide whether it is properly
taken.
The powers vested in the two justices Of
the peace by those sections are not Judicial,
but rather such as might be vested in com
missioners or in g committee Of one OF the
houses. They decide nothing; if they take
improper testimony the house may reject it;
if they refuse to take proper testimony re
mand the matter to them with directions 10
take and return the testimony Offered-over
their actions the courts nave no supervision
any more than over the action Of a commit
tee OF one Of the houses. For
this reason the writ Of prohibition will not
Issue 10 restrain them, unless they assume
fuocjiOns beyond those with which they are
clothed by those sections and judicial in their
character.
As to the charge that the two justices re-
spondents have issued subpenas requiring
public officers TO produce before them public
recoE's in their custody, We will say that we
do not think the section referred 10 gives the
Justices authority to require such records be
brought before them. There is no necessity
for il. II certified copies would not suffice,
If inspection OF the originals should be neces-
sary the house has power 10 compel their
production for it, or before a committe ap-
pointed by it. Nothing can be ac-
comp!ished by giving tie justices who de-
eide nothing on inspection. But, though the
officers would not be bound TO produce the
original records before the justices, it is q
matter with which the relator has nothing 10
do. The writ, however, will not lie.
Writ dismissed GILFHLAS, c. J.
YESTERDAYS SESSION.
At Yesterdays session Of the supreme
court all the Justices were present and the
following business WAS transacted:
Samuel Judd and Lane X. Stone, appel
lants, IS. Edwin F. Skidmore, Claus NJ.
Ditmdn, Anuicc 6. B4rteau and William J..
Barteau, respondents; argued and submitted.
Lucy Hatfield, respondent, IS. The 81.
Paul q Duluth Railway company, appellant:
argued and submitted.
Two wrts Of certiOrari were argued in ref
erenee 10 the park assessments ia Minneap-
oils and submitted.
Geo VI Cone vas admitted on presenta-
ton Of certificates from the supreme court OF
Michigan, 10 practice in the Minnesota courts.
Adjourned TO $50 a. m to-day.