The record-union., 1898-02-08

significance, and are to be treated in
their ordinary sense When they are
given Specification by the Legislature,
under provisions of Sections / and IL.
of Article vi. of the Constitution, they
then become vested With a technical
meaning
The charter does rot attempt to create
such a tribunal as Police Court" or
such an officer as Police Judge Those
terms are used for the purpose Of .speci-
flying the duties of the City Justice of
the Peace. In other words, it is made
plain to that officer that he is to per-
form those duties which had been per-
formed by the Police Court, and its
Judge. as they existed at the time of
the adoption of the charter, and which
would by the act of it's adoption go
out of existence The very first words
in the charter convey this idea. "All
tie powers, jurisdiction and authority
which, prior to the adoption of this
charter have been exercised by the Po-
lice Judge and the Police Court of the
City of Sacramento, or either of them,
shall hereafter be vested in and exer-
cised by the City Justice of the Peace,
etc"
Farther on in the same section 1t
says: He shall hold a Police Court
The reasonable conclusion that we must
come to is, that it is made his express
duty to hold a court, regulating police
matters-that is he shall hold a Grim
lnal court for the purpose of transact
ing criminal business. 1t is pointed out
to that official that the business here
tofore transacted by a Police Court as
then constituted. should thereafter be
transacted by him, as a Justice of the
Peace"
Section 81 bears out this idea, where
in it states: Such Police Court may be
treated and considered as a Justices
Court whenever necessary to uphold
the jurisdiction thereof, or any pro-
ceedings had therein, and all provis-
ions in law relating to Justices of the
Peace and to Justices Courts are here
by made applicable to said Police
Courts, and nothing in the title of the
court. or any papers or proceedings
therein. shall affect the question of
jurisdiction
The language here to mind is not
in conflict with the Constitution. 1t
does not attempt to prescribe any du-
ties or give the Justice of the Peace
any new jurisdiction, but reaffirms, the
jurisdiction he already has, and de-
clares his acts shall not become in
valid by reason of any misnomer of
ms offlclal title-that is if he calls his
court Police Court, when in fact it is
a court of the Justice of the Peace
his proceedings will not be invalidated
This is what he has done in this case
he titles his court, In the Police Court
OF the City of Sacramento" etc, and
further on refers to his proceedings as
being done in the Police Court of the
City of Sacramento" signs his name
there TO as Police Judge and City Jus
tice of the City of Sacramento The
1lrst may be treated as surpluSage,
While the latter states his official title
correctly.
In Section 81 we have a definite def
milton of the terms Police Court, Police
Judge etc, which defines their mean
ing to be Justices Court or Justice of
the Peace. This being the case, / do
not see how il can be contended that
the Justice of the Peace was exercising
the office of Police Judge or holding a
Police Court, in a technical sense,
when he tried and convicted the petit
toner.
+ The petitioner refers to the recent
case of ex parte Giambonini, lit Cal,
ol3, to sustain the plea that the Justice
of The Peace had no Jurisdiction. But,
as l understand that case, there is
marked distinction between it and this
In that case the prisoner was tried and
convicted in the Police Court of the
City of Stockton; the Judge who pre-
sided was a Justice of the Peace of the
City of Stockton.
The law under which he was acting
providing for the Police Court, may be
found in the Statutes of 1891 page 493.
and is entitled: AN Act to provide for
Police Courts in cities having 1900
and Under $4,000 inhabitants
Section l is as follows: The judicial
power of every city having $4,000 and
under is, 600 inha bitants shall be vested
in Police Court, to be held therein by
the City Justice Of said city, or if there
be more than one said Justice of said
city. by the City Justices thereof, or one
of them, to be designated by the Mayor,
but either of said City Justices may
hold no such court without such desig
nation. and it is hereby made the duty
of said City Justice, or City Justices, in
addition to the duties now required Of
them by law, to hold said Police Court"
Here il will be seen that a Legfsla-
tive Act was passed vesting the judicial
power in the Police Court and making
1t the duty of the City Justice to pre-
side IN such court. In other words, a.
Police Court was created. III which he
was 20 preside: but by reason of the
defect in the Act creating the Police
Court il was declared to be an Illegal
court The Supreme Court decides
that the City Justice could not go into
that court and vest it with authority
by reason of the power vested in him as
Justice of the Peace.
No such provision as is found in Sec
ton - of the Sacramento Charter was
contained in the Act declared invalid
by the case of ex parte Giambonini.
The assertion is ventured that II there
had been like provision of law appli-
cable to the proceedings had in that
case. the conviction would have been
upheld by the Supreme Court.
The rule is that a law or an alleged
law must plainly appear to be uncon-
stitutional: otherwise. il will be upheld
as valid. The question presented here
is one of vital Importance TO this city,
and decision in favor of the petitioner
amounts in effect to a general jail de-
livery. On the other hand, the petit
toner has shown ability to secure bail.
and if he is in fact entitled TO his liberty
ne can, by an application 10 the SUI
preme Court obtain il. with but little
inconvenience and delay: and at the
same time obtain a final and authori-
tative decision on the point presented
Let the petitioner be remanded.