Los Angeles herald., 1891-11-24

! Again: "Taking the several constitu-
tional provisions together they vest in
| the inferior courts such jurisdiction as
may be given them 80 long as the jur-
isdiction thus conferred upon them
does not infringe upon the jurisdiction
expressly conferred upon some other
court by the constitution ITSELF"
Petitioners counsel relies upon sec. 8
of art. OF the constitution, the latter
part OF which ia only applicable to this
case, and reads as fellows: "Indictments
found or information laid for publication
in the newspapers shall be tried in the
county where such newspapers have
their publication Office or in the county
where the party alleged to be libeled re-
sides at the time of the alleged publica-
tion, unless the place of trial shall be
changed for good cause" And it ia ar
gued from this provision that being re-
quired to be tried in particular county
means it shall be tried in the court hav-
ing jurisdiction throughout that county.
But clearly this provision does not relate
to the Jurisdiction of any particular
court, but was intended to be limita-
tion as to the place OF trial merely. In
other words, under the old constitution
the party libeled had it in his power to
institute an action againet the publisher
of the libel in any county in the state
wherein the publication might be made
that is, the paper, periodical, or what
ever vehicle Of libel was used, might
be circulated. But now the libel must
be prosecuted. as seen, in the county in
which the publication Office is or in the
county where the party libeled resides.
A party residing in San Francisco and
claiming to be libeled by a newspaper
whose publication Office is in that city,
is under this provision not permitted to
bring an action in San Diego or Siski-
you, and compel the publisher of the
paper to follow him to those distant
counties in order to defend the action.
On the other hand, a party residing in
Siskiyou or San Diego who may be
libeled by the circulrtion Of a newspaper
in the county in which he resides,
although such paper may be printed in
San Francisco, has a right to bring
action where he resides as we'll as in the
place where the publication Office is.
1t is claimed also that this is higher
grade of misdemeanor and was prior to
the passage of the so-called Whitney act
prosecuted in the superior court by in
dictment or by Information. But as
stated in Green vs.. Superior Court: "The
distinction between high and low misde
meanors is one that has never been
recognized in this state; the constitu.
tion and statutes relate exclusively to
felonies and misdemeanors. The divid-
ing line between the two is clearly
marked and defined; the common law
distinction between high and low misde
meanors, depending upon the question
whether the offense charged was infa-
nous or not, was more imaginary than
real, and calculated to lead to confusion
and uncertainty in the administration
of Justice" The same case: "The
power given the legislature by the con-
stitution is not limited to any class OF
misdemeanors, high or low. but extends
to such offenses generally"
In order to sustain the contention of
petitioner in the case it will be neces-
sary to read the constitution something
as follows: "The Superior court shall
have original Jurisdiction in cases of
libel, and all cases of misdemeanor not
otherwise provided for, except in cases
OF libel. /. it shall have exclusive jurisdic-
tion." Courts are not permitted to
make such interpretations, either in the
constitution or the statute; and the
offense here being misdemeanor, and
having been provided for by the legis-
lature by comforting jurisdiction on the
police courts in reference thereto, the
application for writ to prohibit said
court from proceeding must necessarily
be and the same is hereby denied.