Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-05-27

ANA~I az Ills NsHaNt Nul ANNNl'l
tnht intent hcnnies manifest when con-
strued N e,nucc.iou With the section
ior which u Was substituted. whitt pro-
vides that when the supreme court,
or The appellate court cor any
Two OF THE members Of either.
ssould b. dis qualified. the requisite NUM-
DER shnult he cCmuissis neal by the gov
trnor. In bcot, the original says that
When any twJ mcinbfts Of the court
are disqualified the governor shall com
mission tae requisite humber of law
Ners To Try The cause. uud the amended
article provides that be shall appoint
the requisite number Il hut cue member
~ the court De disqualified, a, hrst
blush II would Sem 10 demand tuat IN
Every case IN which J, dge was refused
y speclal Judge should be appointed.
but this construction. when tie SECTION
IN question Is compared with other pro-
visions ia tho amendment. leads to
manifest inccngru'ty Section IL applies
In express terms TO the supreme court
aud the court 81 ,rimin0l upDeals The
amendment, IN terms equally clolr pro
vidcs that twc members of either OF
these courts Sdali constitute q quorum,
Why IL two mrmhrrs % the court make
quorum. slUull third be appointed
IN a ease IN which tn two may concur
In a dprisilu. There is no reason,
But there Is a i,,cssitf for an appoint
ment when TIL two Judges DISAGREE.
Under the original section a specinl judge
could be app nlvH only when Two me,9-
hers OF court was disquhhhei'
Under the nmrhled section an appoint
ment Is provided for whcu only one Is
disqualified. II does NOT follow tnat nn
aupointment Il 10 he made In every
such case Tn. requirement Is that
the governor shall COME ssion the iequl,
slte nnmhcr. - iur the trial and
& - If three
were required 10 make Quorum men
one being disqualified snother wonld he
necessary. 80 also II on be diSquahhcd
and she other twu disagree. the nvpolut-
mcnt of a I,Hcial judge Is REQUISITE 10
enable he cnnyt TO make deolsioh'
although two nay constitute quorum
But ii two be quorum. hnd Two nH
qhaldel aud aide to tsres no aae,to nv,
Judge is eVi'9'.r 10 a DECISION OF w
,ase. although tie third m'uhtr oi Tue
ro1rt be r9c isrd So construed, We see
a satisfactory ~easOn Tor the .huhsV
made Inv The amendment. Otherwise, we
Zee no y.AsOn for the Departure from
the previous law
The next question TO decide Is whether
having obtained Jurisdiction by rehsnh vi
tho constitutional question We snouiu
tnin Jurisdiction for the purpose oil as
nosing of the case upon It's merits ! rSm
reading articles 1913 and lu,h OF tnr
rcyi"eI statutes as amended by act OF
Anrn II. 1872. ID Is evident that II was
tbe intention of the legislature that whel
a case should be brought TO this cout'
by a writ OF error, all questions nat NV,
rial TO the DETERMINATION OF tno ,,p,,i
which should b. raised upon tle nll '.,
aud properly presented !" Nhls W
should be determined py y, unu IL ~.
1t should make such disposition Oh Ky
appeal as the court OF cVu appe9lS uutI ia
to have made. No provision na ',,s
for a mandate to the intwmeIlnlr ~
and 1t could not he conlnnlha'ru ~ ~
we should send our m9huaN Vuiu.
trial court WIN lhslIu'tir'nin ~ nna,,fs
An opinion Of the coufl o. cN,,,, ePhe". y
which We did not concur NJ We .ne,
fore, conclude that II Is our uu'S =" ~ ~
slider the whole cast " esI"u , 80
q tax OF more lhhh J. W VVn "A nreyidn
sary IN order TO puf hletrsl ILL., tn ,',,,js
for sinking fund Tor nulHt"iiiuinh s'n .,,
Of the city ana TO pny unS N.Y. NJ ho,,j ,
provide sinking iunu iVr tu 'v ii,.,t
in controversy am y itn,lntnn M.
thorizel by the city charler' ~ pa"t.
for q city N TINS sthte 70 SIva.r 'c ctn.
ed Indebtedness the power NUS. W ~ ~,
ferred by statute Tue cphsut u ni,,, 4,
., art. II, authoilles tne ls,,s,,, ~ no,,
grant TO a city OF l,NN" luha"llat's - - ~,
er 10 levy ana collect 'nH Nv, NO., ~ ,on.
coed IL per cent W uoeH Nv,
fer authority upon cN "a n,,,,,o,,..
bonded lndenlNhtns' u h''.i1 ,,,,bnr-
prs thp legislature 10 give su'l N"siN'