Los Angeles daily herald., 1890-02-05
THE POLICE COURTS.
Judge stanton Says He will Hold
Court.

police courts of this city was enc OF the
principal topics of discussion in legal
circles yesterday. 1t was the general i'm
preston that the decision had the effect
of entirely abolishing the police courts,
although it does not say soin exact terms.
The decision, after reviewing the case,
saws:
The main point relied upon by the de-
fendant seems to be that the Police
Court of the City of Los Angeles, before
the Judge of which his preliminary ex-
animation was held. and by whose order
he was committed for trial before the
Superior Court of Los Angeles county,
was not legal court, and that the judge
thereof was not authorized by the con-
stitution of the State to perform any
function whatever as a committing, or
other, magistrate. The defendant made
a motion in due time that the informa-
ton be set aside upon the ground that
before the filing thereof he had not been
legally committed by magistrate,
under section 995, Penal Code. II
in fact he was not legally COM
mitted by magistrate, the point
made is we'll taken. In support of this
the provisions of the charter of the City
of Los Angeles, under and by virtue of
which L. Stanton, Esq, the Police Judge
who sat as committing magistrate IN his
case, was elected and claims to exercise
the functions of magistrate, are in viola
tion of article 6, section l .of the State
Constitution that the joint resolution
under which that charter was adopted by
n1 at1Yrn hNln kbNr1 ~
force and effect so far as it concerned the
establishment of police court in said
city.
The court, after discussing the ques-
tion as to whether the adoption of reso-
luton was proper legislative enactment,
saws:
Section IS of article of the State Con-
stitution says: 1.-THE Legislature shall
fix by law the jurisdiction of any inferior
courts which may bs established il pur-
euance of section l of this article, and
shall fix by law the powers, duties and
responsibilities OF the judges thereof"
It seems clear, from the language used
in these constitutional provisions, that it
was the intention of those who framed
that instrument, in establishing inferior
courts, such as the one in consideration,
to declare that it must be done by act
of the Legislature, which must be APP
proved by the Governor, or upon his
veto thereof must be passed again by
two-thirds of the members of each house
voting therefor, and must become law
in the same manner as any other law, as
is indicated under sections 15 and 16,
article 4, of the constitution herein, and
this method of procedure must prevail
IN oil Ia ia o1-
tablished pertaining to the bringing into
existence of all inferior courts under pro-
visions of charters such as that OF Los
Angeles.
Is it permissible to declare that the
provisions of charter establishing a
police or inferior court in city of over
ten and under one hundred thousand in
habitants, which depend alone for their
validity upon a joint resolution of the
approval of the charter by majority of
the members of the Legislature, but not
in any way approved by, submitted to or
passed upon by the Governor, are con-
sistent with or subject t. the I
constitutional provisions and general
laws in existence at the time of the rati- |
fication of the 10Th amendment supra,
which constitutional provisions prescribe !
a different method for the establishment
of such court as the charter provisions
bring into existence?
And again, can constitutional amend
ment which contains such limitations as
those existing in the 10Th amendment
supra, be said to supersede the necessity
of establishing an inferior court in the
manner which the prior sections of the
statute point out as proper?
do pot fh;nk tho civtoontb a-oond.
ment is susce ptible Of the construction
claimed for it, and we are of the opinion
that it plainly declares to the contrary,
namely: that ali existing constitutional
provisions and general laws in force at
the time of its adoption are continued in
full force and effect and control in such
charter. And this view is strengthened
when we come to consider section of
article IL, in reference TO corporations,
which is in these Words ''And all
charters thereof framed or adopted by
authority of this constitution shall be
subject to and controlled by general
laws"
II the whole charter had been duly
passed by the Legislature and approved
by the Governor, or passed over his veto
and in all respects taken in the ordinary
form of the Legislative enactment Of the
constitution, section Is, article
we are not prepared to say if no general
laws on the same subject have remained
in force, but that police or inferior
court as esta shed would be within the
terms of the constitutional provisions
above adverted to.
Another feature connected with thu
matter in hand, which although no
urged, is, under the circumstances, O
such importance as to deserve at least {
passing mention. 1t is fact, as w
think, not only (as appears from the pre-
amble of the resolution adopted by th'
charter of Los Angeles) that it is city
of more than ten and under one hundred
thousand inhabitants, but that it is city
of more than thirty and under one hun
dred thousand inhabitants. If this is 30
then the portion of the charter objected
to on the grounds heretofore state(
is also unconstitutional in another poin
of view, in this, that it is obnoxious t.
the so-called Whitney act, which is ad
verted to by the appellate court, in tht
lately decided bank case, eT part
All You, No. 20,5S6. 1t was there de
cided that the freeholders' charter of thu
city of Oakland, a city of the same clas
with Los Angeles, was subject to th'
provisions of the act above men
toned, the same being here general
law and to be found in the constitution
of 1885, page 213; and that the Police