Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1888-06-16
Visiting Judges.


The Supreme Court of Appeals recently
on tho eve of adiourning for The term,
through Judge Lacy, delivered the following
opinion, which is of great Importance where
county judges, under certain circumstances,
invite brother judges to sit for them in the
trial of causes
Gresham as. Ewell, Judge.
This s writ of error to O judgment of
the Circuit Court of Lancaster in prohibi.
ton, rendered May 5, 1883, in vacation, re-
Iusing the writ upon the petition of the
plaintiffin error, who prayed for the same
against judgment of the County Court of
Lancaster, rendered at the September term,
1887.
The case was contested election for the
Office of clerk of said County Court Upon
the trial the election was declared invalid
and the Office of clerk of the County Court
of Lancaster declared vacant.
This judgment is claimed TO bo void be-
cause it was not rendered by any person au
thorized to render such judgment.
1t is conceded that the judge of that court
did not preside at the trial of the case, all
though personally present.
It is also conceded that The county judge
of another county did preside at the said
trial. 1t is further conceded that the said
visiting Judge went upon the bench and pre-.
sided, and acted as judge and rendered said
judgment without any order from the judge
of that county entered upon the record that
he was 80 situated ss to render it improper
in his judgment for him to decide or preside
at the trial of the case in question.
1t is admitted that the law upon the sub
ject provides as follows: "If any judge of
~ 4, fo,l offa an1
regular term of his court, or be prevented
from sitting during the whole term or any
part thereof, or if any Judge OF a county
court be so situated as to render it improper
in his Judgment for him TO decide or preside
at the trial of any cause, and ii be so entered
of record, or if from dealhor any other cause
there be no Judge of such County Court the
Judge of any other County Court may hold
said court. either for the whole term cr.any
part thereof" Act March 4,1SS4, page 74S.
The principles governing the issuance of
the writ prayed for have been set forth in
recent decision of this court reported in the
Southeastern Reporter, Volume 5, page SOL.
Nelms vs. Vaughan and cases cited arc "a
miliar and we'll understood.
It is not pretended that the cause origin
ally, nor that some collateral matter arising
therein, does not belong to that jurisdiction,
but to the cognizance of some other court.
| The Jurisdiction of the County Courts is con.
! ceded.
Thejurisdiction ofthe rtbeing admitted,
| it is nevertheless claimed that the court as
organized had no jurisdiction for any pur-
pose whatever; that the supposed Judge was
without Jurisdiction in that county, his ju-
rlsdiction being especially limited by law TO
some other subdieision of the State and that
the lawful judge not being absent, but pres,
ent, and no order having been entered OF
record that he was 80 situated as 10 render
il improper in his Judgment for him to de.
eide or preside at the trial of that csse, that
he exceeded his jurisdiction i'll acting as
Judge without the authority OF the law, and
the said Judgment is without authority and
null and void. And this seems TO be clear
| ly so. He was not authorized to sit in that
court except under certain circumstances
prescribed by law, and the laws prescript
was not complied with. He does not up.
pear to have had any more right to preside
and render judgment in that court than
any other person there present, not the
Judge of that court. A lawyer may preside
as Judge in this State in some OF the courts
upon the entry of certain order provided
BY law, but that could not be held to vest
any lawyer with such authority, and his
rendition of a judgment without it would
doubtless be held nullity.
A county-court Judge may sit as judge IN
a cause in another county when the lawful
| ly qualified Judge of that county is absent or
| fails to attend or is situated in prescribed
way and ii be entered Of record. 1t l5 only
when such entry is made that the law gives
the authority. The Jurisdiction and author
| ity from any other source is merely self-as-
sumed.
The Legislature doubtless had reasons sat-
isfactory to that body when this provision
was inserted in the law, for the provision,
sand it be so entered of record" is an
amendment to the former law but be that
as it may, 90 the law is written, and see no
principle which can exempt this county
| Judge or this cause or these parties from lts
operation, and the writ should be granted
and the order OF the Circuit Court of Lam
caster reversed and annulled and the Coun-
ty Court of Lancaster prohibited from en-
forcing the said judgment, which. having
been rendered without the authority OF the
law by pereon NOT authorized to render
such Judgment, is in excess of jurisdiction,
] null. and void, and may be go regarded
whenever called in question.
Judge Lewis dissenting.
]. B. Sener for plaintiff in error; b. Kan.
| Wexford for defendant in error.
| 1T Is said that this decision may possibly
! have some bearing on suits decided in the
CORPORATION Court of this city by Judge
| Clarke. of Winchester, who Oh three occa-
sions presided for the late Judge Meade
while the latter was ILL.,.
Syrup of Figs