The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1891-12-22
CASES Of M|SDEMEANOR.
The District Court Has Not Original
Jurisdiction Over all
Of Them.
Defendants Indicted for Assault
and Battery Win Their
Case ON Appeal.
Tho Law laid Down for County Attorneys,
who Have Differed ON
tho Question. -

aGf %%N%M}8a5T Vhu @uuStlUlAs H@SAE @n
The supreme court rendered q decision
! yesterday which concerns all the county
attorneys in the state. For some time there
has been q difference of opinion among
theso officers 40 TO the original jurisdiction
of the district courts in certain misde-
msanor cases. The opinion Ia by Associate
Justice DNWitt, the other justices CON
curing, in the case OF the state against
George Meyers ct al, respondents. "This
action Ia q criminal prosecution against the
respondents, commenced originally in the
district court, BY the presentmsnt of an
indictment by the grand jury, charging the
ofense Of assault and battery. On the mo-
ton Of the defendants, the district court
quashed the indictment, on the ground that
that court had not original jurisdiction to
try tho offease. The state appeals. Juris-
diotion il conferred upon the courts OF this
state by the constitution. The constitu-
tion il the charter Of their existence and
their powers. Thu district court has
original jurisdiction to try such
criminal cases, ~ the constitution provides
that il shall. II that court is not given
jurisdiction, by thu constitution, over q GER
tain criminal case, that jurisdiction does
not exist in that court. The district court
has not original Jurisdiction over all cases
of misdemoanor. It has original jurisdic-
ton over cases of misdemeRnor Of a certain
class. That class is described in the con-
stitntion a. 'all cases of misdemeanor not
otherwise provided tor The misdemeanor
in this case was that of assault and battery.
Is jurisdiction Of that misdemeanor pro-
vided for otherwise than in the district
court? Tho Justice court shall have iuris-
diction in criminal matters not Of tho
grade Of felony, as may DO provided by law
Assault and battery is not of the grade OF
felony sec. 81 Or. Laws, and sec. 4 Or. III.
Act. Ia ita jurisdiction provided by law
to be in the Justices court?
by virtue of Art. Xxx. Seized. sec. !, the
constitution adopted as a law Of the state,
sac. s Or. Pr. Act. That section became q
law Of this state, contemporaneouBly with
the constitution. II il congenital with the
state. That is to say, II became a law SO
far as il was not inconsistent with the CON
justices Of the peace shall have jurisdic-
tion of all misdemeanors committed in the
county in. which they shall be qualified to
act when the punishment therefor does
not exceed a fine of one hundred dollars, or
Imprisonment for three months in the
county Jail, or both such fine and imprison-a
ment.' This paragraph just cited is not in
consistent with the constitution, and there
fore became, and as it has not been re-
pealed or altered, is the law. Assault and
battery is such a misdemeanor as described
in chat paragraph, sec. 81 Or. Laws, and
sec. 4 Or. Pr. Act. 1t is therefore provided
by law.' sec. q Art. VIII. Const., that JUS,
tice courts shall have Jurisdiction Of the
otfense of assault and battery, The juris-
diction Of assault and battery is therefore,
SNAhAryvruo yrnyi1nl for1 Caom71 Art N1TT
Const., and, consequently, the district
court has not original jurisdiction of that
offenso. :.
Nov we encounter the argument made
by tho states counsel. The first paragraph
of sec. 6 Or. Pr. Act. is The district courts
shall havs exclusive jurisdiction in all
cases Of felony, and Of all %ofCenses not cog
nizable in the probate courts, or courts of
justices of the peace, and jurisdiction CON
current with said courts of all other
otfenses' The words last used. all other
o%ffensos' would include, Of course, assault
and battery. II is commended by the states
counsel that this paragraph OF sec. 6 was
adopted by the constitution, as the law of
the state, and that therefore, the district
court has concurrent original jurisdiction,
of assault and battery. But that para
graph was not adopted, if it is Inconsistent
with the constitution. IL is incoL sistent
with the constitution, in this. The %consti-
tuition says the district court shall have
original Jurisdiction in all eases Of misde,
This il equivalent to declaring
that the district court shall have
jurisdiction only in those cases Of misde-
meanor mot otherwise provided for for
the reason that the district court obtains
its life and jurisdiction only from the CON
stitution, and takes only that which the
constitution gives it, by express words or
necessary implication. Therefore, it is de-
Glazed by the constitution, that the district
court has jurisdiction only OF misdemean-
ors mot otherwise provided for
"Now. jurisdiction of the misdemeanor
of assault and battery il otherwise pro-
vided for Const. Art. VIII. sec. II, Or. Pr.
Act. socs, 4 NC, Or. Laws, sec. 81. It's iur-
isdiction in tho Justice court is provided by
law Const. Art. VIII. soc. p. Therefore,
was not adopted by the constitution, for
the following reason; For said paragraph
of said sec. 6 to give to the district court
concurrent jurisdiction with tho Justice
court. OF tho misdemeanor OF assault and
bnttery, would be inconsistent with the
provisions Of the constitution, for the res-
SON, that that instrument declares that
the district court shall have jurisdic-
ton only of a certain class of
misdomeanors.1 viz, those mot otherwise
provided for;' it further declares that iuris-
diotion Of assault and battery shall be in
the Justice court, If such jurisdiction be
provided by law;' and, furthermore, the
constitution adopts, (sec. 20, Seized, sec. l.
q law, (ssc. 6 Or. Pr. Act) which provides
with SEQ. 4 Or. Pr. Act md sec. 81
Or. Laws) that the jurisdiction Of
assault and battery shall be In the Justice
court. Such are our views of the construc-
ton Of the constitution. We observe that
they are in accord with the decisions of the
supreme court of California. lex. Parte
McCatty, 53 Gal. 4223, OK. pnrts Walling-
ford, GO i'd, 102, Gatford vs.. Bush, 60 i'd,
149. Green v. Superior Court, rs id. 55S,
The People ". Joselyn so i'd. 5a4, Sam v.
Lawrence SO id. 49,, Same v. Hamberg. 81
i'd. 472. The conclusion that we have
reached Geoms to us as simple and inevi-
table as q mathematical demonstration.
w are Of opinion that the Judgment Of
the district court is correct, and that the
district court has not original jurisdiction
to try = case Of assault and battery, but
only appellate jurisdiction (Const. Art.
VIII. soc. 11l, to try such case IA has arisen
in the justice or lower court. Where we
have spoken of the constitution adopting
the laws OF this territory, it will be under
stood, of course, that we mean adopted
until altered or repealed, etc. Const. Art.
XXX. SEIZED, SEQ. /. Again, where Wa have
SPOKEN of the constitution comforting
jurisdiction. we are speaking only from tho