The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1898-02-28

~, ,sia ~ 70 DC the main proposition IN Ha,
isiA .Nouhv vs.. Stewart Nov. II the 10,
es,s sre could not confer inrIstt otion -
,X,ras.N Win the district court upon
apai corporation territory. whe,,,,o a. 81,
nv we county seat. then there seems /
~ an inhibition somewhere in thn cor. !,
unuoh which does control tn.s Question
ms nhibltion has not been tA,lntod n.
, ~ ilsrris County vs.. Stew,lr.. /. the LIZ
a S'asure mas the authority 10 con er ,uris
.''on upon municipal corporations. 60
| eAsNe Win the district or county O
!ustlce courts. then, under whitner IS
,rsv'"nap, mat matter VIII be controlled o.
.ne territorial location OF the mayn,.i
court, and not by its jurisiictio. Thai {,
the power 10 create such cou.. woula sxis
ony within municipal corporations constt,
LUNG county seats. Ii could hardly \,
neiu mat tho legislature couli not Great,
uissrict court TO sit at any point In tht
Vounty outside Of the county seat, and ytt
.onier upon municipal court tho sam,
!u.lsuietlon and maintain IL ia said ,otrt
wnen ~ was located at another puint thar
.ne county seat. As we understand uarris
County VS.. Stewart. the sporonio court hell
tue legislature can confer jurisdiction upna
corporation courts. such as it deems proper
, ,iot 70 exceed that OF the district count
because there Is no constitutional inhibi-
non; II so, then Ii would follow thatrs,t,h
jurisdiction can be conferred on all OF said
corporation courts wherever situated, No.
cause the constitution makes no difcreaSe
as 10 It's locality. Then VIC would find ty
comparing tho two cases OF Harris County
vs. Stewart and whitner ys.S-Deltnap. SUI
pri, thar the legislature could confer jIlis-
ulcuon on the corporatiol court co.eNtrn-
slves with that of the district court wbers
ever situated and at the same time could
confer jurisdiction upon a district court
situated at any other point Of the catlity
than the county seat.
This court said IN tho Leach case, supra,
that III the Legislature may delegate au-
thorlty 10 one municipal court in one town
TO enforce the general laws of the STATE, II
may do so in every town: ana IL II can
confer authority upon said courts TO take
jurisdiction OF misdenieanor, then II
may do so as to all these classes OF Of
lenses; ii as to misdemeanor then the
reasoning would be equally as cogent, that
IL could do SO as to all felonies. for there
is no constitutional objection In the way of
one class of offense that does not obtain
as to all classes Of offenses, II this power
can be delegated to n municipal court in
matters pertaining to criminal cases. then
II can be delegated with equal propriety n
All cases of civil actions; and we should /
have the anomalous condition of a munir-
ipat court exercising concurrent original
in civil and criminal cases
the State and at the same time
with district courts, county courts and JUS
tees courts aud also at the same time
could be made to exercise appellate iuris-
diction co-extensve with the district and
county courts, and at the same time al.
pelate, without conforming the jurlsdlc.
ion of the constitutional courts with that |
conferred upon the municipal courts. This |
was quoted in tho case of Harris county vs. !
ltewaft, supra, and thus criticised: This |
implies an apprehension that tho |
legislature might abuse the power to create |
,ther courts. and especially 10 combine tho (
of the general laws Of the /
State and the local laws o. a municipal |
government in one court 10 such an extent !
Is 10 greatly mperil or destroy The Judicial |
ystenl Of the State, And il Is met IN the !
anne opinion with this arcument. "it may |
@ said that pursuing this course of rea
oninS 10 an extreme. a jurisdiction might |
'e thus created, tpeadng SO closely On the /
eels of the courts of session and common |
aeas MS to render difficult TO distingu'sh I
heir footsteps; but so long as there Is a
jurisdiction possessing controlling powsr
Yer 1t the judges Of witch are aprointei
y the manner prescribed in the constitu-
ion. the citizen has all the security whish
v the constitution etc In This connsc-
ion the constitutional appellate
jurisdiction Of this court Is cifesr
being co-extensiye with the
mits of Texas, as a corrective Of
mis- contemplated abuse by the legislature.
1t be fact that the evils deprecated in
rat oninicn can be avoided By reason Ct
lie fact that this court has appellate iuris-
lotion eo-extensive with the limits Or
exas then the very emergency mentioned
al arisen in the Fort Worth city charter,
hich was under consideration the LEACH
.se; because the legislature had limited !
le right OF appeal from the city court
Fort Worth TO this court ard had de-
lived this court OF the very appellate
risdiction which that case (Harrla conn
VS.. Stewart) asserts the constitution
YES it, and here w8s the act Of the lePls-
ture seeking to deprive the rleht Of the
tlzen TO appeal to this court or aay
urt where the fine imposed was $50 or )
SIS, and had sought TO infringe not only \
g right of appeal from such conviction. !
1t had sought further 10 deprive this !
urt of such appellate jursdiction. So '
e very emergency spoken OF IN that opin- l
n as prospective in the mird OF this
urt had berome realization end fact j
der the act OF the legislature grant ?
z the charter 10 the city OF Fort Worth. I
)r that act was constitutional. and he
gislature had TIE right to limit the right Q
appeal in seid charter. then so far rs (
at limitation TO an appeal is concerned 3
is court ceased to exercise its appellate
risdiction. In that connection the fol- .
wing language Is also found in Harris !
unity Vs. Stewart: IF The people choose :
trust the legislature with power u en- ;.
'ge tha judicial system In this suta !,
10 destroy It. the courts can not in =
-fere OH the ground that such authority =,
Eht be carried 10 an extreme which
uld be destructive Of the syftcm It's IT,
is, TO our minds IL carrying that Dos
ne too far. II had just been announced
that decision that the constitution had m
lferred appellate jurisdiction upon tbs Il
irt co-exteRsige With the limits Of the n
tie and ne Injury conll result and new /,
proposition IS asserted hat the lsgis- 4.
ure may destroy the power Of thls eourt, ri
4 this court would be roweriess under 81
eet OF the legislature to exercise III ~
Institutional appellate Jurisdiction. We at
rot believe that any authority can te ii,
md 20 sustain such proposition. AZ be-
e stated. the powers Of this government
divided into three departments tre
,cutiye, judicial and legislative: and fy
,rcss ,nn,-anvd NJ Tho ronst tint fOn zach / IN