The record-union., 1896-06-09
JUDICIAL OR MINISTERIAL
Which Function Do the City Trustees
Exercise in Removals?
The Chief Point Argued on the Croly
Petition Before Judge
Catlin.


the application of E. ]. Croly, Superin-
tendent of Streets, for an injunction
to prevent the City Board of Trustees
from subjecting him to a trial on GER
tain charges, made by L. B. Washburn,
accusing him of incompetency, miscon-
duct, malfeasance in Office, and viola
ton of the terms of the City
Charter c. L. White and j. w.
Hughes appeared as counsel for Croly,
and Corporation Counsel Hiram w.
Johnson, for the Trustees and in opposi-
ton to the petition. The matter will
be decided to-day.
Counsel for Croly contended that the
action of the City Trustees, in enter
tanning the charges and setting time
for hearing them, was in excess OF Its
Jurisdiction In support of this con-
tention 1t was argued:
First-AsSuming that upon charges
in proper form being presented the
Board Of Trustees could try the petit
tioner and pass judgment upon him, re-
moving him from office, he contends
that the accusation preferred is not suf-
ficient to confer jurisdiction.
Second-The provision of the Charter
OF the City of Sacramento, being the
first subdivision of Section %, which
purports to empower the Board of
Trustees to try, and, by majority
vote, to remove from office appointees
against whom charges have been pre-
ferred, is unconstitutional and void.
Counsel held that the Board Of Trus-
tees as a judicial tribunal sitting to try
an appointee for misconduct or NAL
feasance in office is a tribunal of in
ferior and limited Jurisdiction. The jul
risdiction possessed by it is purely the
creature of the statute, and does not
attach except in cases provided for by
the statute. No intendments are to be
INDUCED in in favor of such juriSdic-
ton, but jurisdiction must appear from
the face of the record. Where it is de-
cided that tribunal has jurisdiction
over question presented to it, such de-
cision necessarily establishes that the
tribunal has the authority-the mere
Power-to decide the question either
way. That is, to hold that there is
jurisdiction to decide in only one way,
and not in any other, is to say that
there was in reality no question before
the board or court at all. &C. P. Co.
VS. Placer County, 43 Cal. 369)
It therefore follows that before a tri-
bunal of limited or inferior jurisdiction,
W
vor of jurisdiction are to be INDUCED in,
the Jurisdiction must appear from the
face of the proceedings. If the charges
made are consistent with innocence;
that is, if the case will fall before
general demurrer, the tribunal has no
jurisdiction to try the case on its mer-
its, for no merits are shown; and the
only jurisdiction disclosed-and no pre-
sumptionS of jurisdiction are indulged-
is jurisdiction to dismiss the proceed
ings, which is no jurisdiction at all.
IN other words, the complaint of a
plaintiff filed in a tribunal of limited
and special Jurisdiction must state
facts sufficient to constitute a cause Of
action, or the tribunal does not obtain
jurisdiction to proceed to trial by rea
son Of the presentation and filing OF
such pleading.
Thus, where the affidavit filed for the
purpose Of obtaining an order for the
publication of summons was insuffi-
cient, it was held that the court did not
obtain jurisdiction, although, in fact
it made the order for the publication Of
the summons. Swain VS.. Chase, 12
Cal. 2S3)
Various authorities were cited by
counsel in support of the petitioners
position. They then argued that the
charges do not show him guilty Of any
misconduct or malfeasance in office
Subdivision A of the first subdivision of
the accusation is that petitioner caused
to be conveyed between twenty and
thirty loads Of dirt to the premises Of
the Sacramento Lumber Company;
that the hauling was done with wagons,
teams and laborers under the control
and pay Of the city; and that the city
has not been reimbursed in any manner
therefor. 1t is not alleged that the city
will not be reimbursed at some proper
time hereafter, nor does it appear that
the city ought to be compensated, nor
that it was not to the interest of the city
to haul and deposit such dirt on such
private premises, or even that the city
ought not to pay something for the
privilege; nor IS there any charge of
intent on the part of the accused. The
accusation is perfectly consistent with
innocence.
Specification B Is on information and
belief. The proceeding against the
accused is highly penal in ITS nature,
and in the event Of his conviction is to
be followed if the charter provisions
are valid, by removal from office and
perpetual disqualification from hold
ing any position in the service of the
AM.A - :AA1>