Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1886-05-21
THE COURTS OPINION.
Their Reasoning ON the j Judiciary
DilI

/
| The Supreme Court in the jud
ciary case considered the objet
tions of the attorneys in detail. l
concluding their remarks in dimin
| ishing the number Of districts, tn
opinion says:
In whatever direction we ar
proach the question, we are ire
| sistably led to the conclusion tina
| the Legislature had the absolute
power to FIX up the law the humble
of judicial districts and the mum
Der of judges therein, and that ii
the exercise of this power one dis
trict may be made of the entire
State. After discussing
THE TITLE OF THE BILL,
1t says: Applying this doctrine tt
the case in hand, it seems clear to
our minds that the objections
urged by relator are not well found
ed. The act does not abolish the
judicial districts of this State. 1t
simply dlminishes the number Of
districts. The word re-district
was not an evasion of the subject
Of the act. 1t was not misleading.
1t called the attention of The
Legislature and of the people to
the fact that it was proposed by
the act to make a change in the
judicial dlstricts-to district the
State over again. In answer
to the objection that the act
gives
TIE JUDGES AT CHAMBERS
The powers of an organized court,
the opinion says: This objection is
and wholly unten-
able. Speaking of the section of
the law, which provides that the
DISTRICT COURT SHALL ALWAYS
BE OPEN
For the transaction of business
and for the objection that this
abolished non-judicial days, the
Court says: 1t was not intended
to have any snch effect and should
not be so construed, but if such an
Interpretation could be given to it,
it would furnish no legal reason
for declaring the act void. In con-
sidering the method Of
PAYING THE JUDGES
And the objection urged against it
the Court says:
There is no constitutional objec-
ton to the method provided for
the
PAYMENT OF THE SALARIES
Of the District Judges. The pro-
Vision which allows to the District
Judges the necessary expenses &C
.ually paid by them for travelling
oy public conveyance in going to
md from the place Of holding court
should not in our opinion be con
trued as opposed to Section 10,
Article vi of the constitution pro-
libitlng judicial officers from re-
eiving to their own use any fees or
requisites Of Office, but admitting !
or the sake of the argument that
is susceptible Of the construction
laimed by the relator, 1t would
My affect the payment Of the
raveling expenses Of the Judges,
nd would not have the effect to
estroy or render void the other
of the act"
In discussing the provision for
PRESIDING JUDGE
he Court holds the authority
iyen to the Judges by Section 8,
, select one Of their number for
residing Judge, does not con-
.avene any provision of the con-
.itution. The Judges without the
would have the inherent
over to adopt such rules and reg
lations as might be necessary for
lie proper disposition Of the judi
al business. In passing upon
le objection that the act does not
X the
TINES OF HOLDING COURT,
he opinion says: 'The provision
Section 8, that the Court shall
, Eeld in each county at least once
every six months. is a compli
ice with Section Z, Article vi, of
le constitution, which declares