People's voice. [volume] (Wellington, Sumner County, Kansas) 1890-1917, 1895-06-27
ONE D0LLHR PER YEHR.
NUMBER 45.

ouense ana his counsel moved the
court TO quash the information for
tne reason that it did not state facts
sumclent to constitute an offense and
Tor the further reason that the law
or statute relied on by the urosecu.
tion was unconstitutional, and the
coart sustained the motion and dis.
charged the defendant, and from this
order of the court the state appealed
10 she supreme cOurt. The court saws
10 passing upon the jurisdictionsl
question: Neither party in their
briefs, or otherwise, raise the question
OF Jurisdiction Of the appellate court.
but the court must, before proceeding
TO determine any case, ascertain
whetherit has Jurisdiction of the par
ties and the subject matter Where
there is no jurisdiction it does not be.
long to the proper function of court
to give an opinion upon a matter sub
mitted to is for guidance Of parties Of
inferior tribunals even where the par.
ties consent TO it.
"The jurisdiction of courts of appeals
are defined in sec. 9, chap. 20, laws Of
1895. Section 9-Said courts of ap-
peals, within their respective divis-
ions, shall have original jurisdiction.
concurrent with and to the same ex-
tent as is now given by law to the
supreme court, in quo warranto, man.
damus and habeas corpus; they shall
also have exclusive appellate jurisdie-
tiOn as now allowed by the law in all
cases OF appeals from conviction for
mlsdemeanOrs in the district court
and other courts Of record; also in an
proceedings in error as now allowed
by law, taken from orders and decis-
Ions OF the district and other courts
OF record, or the judges thereof except
probate courts. The Jurisdiction thus
defined is limited to all cases of ap-
peals from convictions for misdemean.
ors in the district and other courts of
record. The limitation in cases Of
misdemeanOrs being confined TO cases
of conviction as thus expressly defined
precludes the court from taking juris-
diction in cases Of appeals containing
as IT does a grant Of special powers,
the court cannot take any powers be-
yond those contained in the specific
grant, and which have been given
either expressly or by necessary impli.
cation. 1t may seem an anomaly that
the courts Of appeals are invested
with the exclusive appellate jurisdlc-
tiOn in all cases Of appeal from conyic-
tions for misdemeanOrs, and with full
power to determine the very same
constitutional questions that are rails
ed in case where the state appeals.
II the district court in this case had
oyerruled the motion to, auash
the information and the case
had gone to trial and resulted in
conviction Of the defendant, and he
had brought the case into this court
by appeal, this court would without
any question have had the exclusive
Jurisdiction to hear and determine
the same questions that are involved
in the appeal by the state. Yet this
court does not make the law its only
function to decide upon the law when
presented to US for our consideration"
The court then suggests that the
case be returned by the clerk OF the
court to the supreme court, from
whence it came. This was simply an
oversight in the lawmakers and not
providing an appeal for the state at
the same time they provided for the
appeal by the defendant.