Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-07-16
THE JUDICIAL TERN.
DECISION OF TEE SUPREME COURT IN
THE PULASKI CASE.
Opinion Delivered by Judge D. A. Hinton
in Jameson VS.. Hudson,
&C., &C, &c.

Gently decided by the Supreme Court OF
Appeals at Wytheville, was q contest
between the Hon. II. A. Jameson and
the Hon. Isaac Hudson for the office OF
county Judge Of Pulaski county. The
facts of the case as disclosed by the re-
cord are these:
In April, 1882, the county Of Pd-
laski, which then had 5000 inhabi-
tants, was separated from the county OF
Wythe and declared to be entitled to a
Judge Of its own. Thereupon the Hon.
II. A. Jameson was duly elected and
commissioned as county judge Of said
county, and he thenceforward dis
charged the duties of the Office until the
4th day Of January, 1856, when the
Hon. Isaac Hudson, who had been elect
ed on the 3lst day Of December, 1885,
to the same position by the Legislature,
took possession of the Office and pro.
cecded to exercise all the functions
thereof.
1t will thus be at once seen that the
point to be decided in this case depends
entirely upon the length Of time for
which Judge Jameson was elected to
hold the ofii,e. And this question, we
apprehend, is freed of all difficulty by
various adjudications Of this court, to
which we shall now briefly refer.
In the first case which arose under
The present Constitution, in re Broadus,
80 Graft, 1872, the then president OF
this court, the veuerated Judge r. g.
l.. MoncuIe, held, in an opinion re-
markable for its vigor and clearness.
that the terms of the county judgeship
had definite and fixed beginnings and
endings; that the first term of three
years commenced on the 1st day Of
January, 1871, and ended on the 3lst
day of December, 1873; that the next
term of six years commenced on the
lst day OF January, 1874, and ended on
the 3lst day Of December, 1879; and
that the succeeding term Of six years
commenced on the lst day Of January,
1850, and ended on the 3lst day Of De-
cember, 1855. lie also held in that
opinion that the clause in section
% of Article VI. of the Constitution
which provides that the judges {" shall
discharge the duties Of their respective
Offices from their first appointment and
qualification under the Constitution un-
Ill their terms begin " applied to those
county judges only whose judicial terms
were to commence on the lst day Of
January, 1871; aud in this opinion
Judge Anderson concurred. The cor
rec,ness Of this construction, it is true,
was denied by majority Of the court
in the cases of er.porte Meredith, Bland
and Giles county judge case. and Estes
cs. Edmondson, reported in 33 Grsttan,
but these cases must be regarded as
overruled and as not containing the cor.
rect doctrine upon these points.
In Burks rs. Hinton, 18th Virginia
Report |. these same provisions Of
the Constitution came again un-
der review, when this court,
upon great consideration, delibe
rately adopted the construction.
which had been previously put upon
them by Judges Moncure and Ander-
son, and in that case Judges Lacy and
Richardson, iE opinions characterized /
by great vigor and ability: demonstrate
in the most convincing manner the per-
feet soundness of that construction. |
That case has been followed by other
cases in this court, and in all Of them
the same Interpretation is put upon
these provisions Of the Constitution
Howison rs. Weldon, II Virginia Re
ports, 708; Warrington rs. Edmond |
SOD, 10 Virginia Law Journal, 2SG
By these repeated decisions this con-
structiOn has been so firmly established |
as the proper one that we cannot allow
it to be again questioned.
in the case Of Foster rs. Jones, 70 |
Virginia Reports, 6i3, we held that 1t
was competent for the Legislature to
curtail the territorial jurisdiction Of a
county judge by taking from him one
of the counties composing his district,
provided the county or counties which |
were left him contained at least eight |
thousand inhabitants. Now, from the
views announced in the foregoing deci-
siops, it inevitably follows that judge !
of county who has been elected to
fill vacancy is elected not for a
full term of six years, but for that por-
ton of the constitutional term OF six |
years that may remsin-that is, may
not have expired. The fallacy in the |
argument of those who maintain the op- |
posite doctrine lies in the assumption
that the words "term Of office me-
cessarily refer TO the incumbent, |
whereas the fact is that when the term, |
of the different classes Of judges begin
and end at definite periods, as they do |
under the Constitution, those words re-
fer TO the tenure or duration Of the |
office.
Now, by the express mandate OF our
Constitution there must be county |
court in each county of the Common
wealth, which is to be held by judge |
learned in the law OF the State, and |
who shall be known as the county.court |
JuODe Dut, lOT Tue sdhc VI cCohohJ'
where county has less than 5000 in
habitants it must be attached to adjoin-
ing counties, when the judgeship Of all
these counties are filled by one and the |
same person.
Under this provision of the Consti-
tuition the county of Pulaski, which |
bad less than 5000 inhabitants, was
attached to the county OF Wythe.
which had more than that number, aud
a Judge was elected to hold both offices
for the term of six years. That term,
by virtue Of the constitutional provi-
sion, commenced on the lst day of jan
uary, 1880. and ended the 3lst day OF
December, 1885; when, therefore, Pa
laski county was separated from the |
county Of Wythe, in 1882, only por-
tion Of that term had expired, and |
when Judge Jameson was elected the
right to hold the Office for the remainder
of that term attached to him,
Ill ,L.f on,,ld etfanh