The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1898-04-03
COLD COMFORT FOR CROOKS
JUDGE HART STANDS By THE
CITY JUSTICE.
a Decision in Which He Gives
His Reasons for Uphold
ing 1t.

Following is the decision rendered
yesterday by Superior Judge Hart III
the case of Charles Leroy, the Croly
burglar, who claimed his release on tAe
ground that a commitment issued from
the City Justices Court was Invalid
in which the Judge upholds the JUS
tees Court:
THE DECISION.
This is a motion to set aside the IN
formation filed in this court by the
District Attorney, charging the de-
PENDANT with the crime Of robbery
upon the alleged ground that the de-
PENDANT was not legally committed 1of
trial in this court.
In support of his motion, counsel for
defendant urges that Section 1O3 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, by the terms
of which the Justices Court, known as
the City Justice Court Of the City OF
Sacramento, before which the defend
ant was examined and by which he was
committed for trial in this court upon
the charge above stated, has existence
and whatever jurisdiction and author
ity il pretends to exercise, is unconsti-
upon the ASSUMPTION that, in order to
provide Justices Courts for incOrpor-
ated cities and towns, and cities and
counties, as authorized by Section II
of Article VI of the Constitution, il
was necessary for that purpose for the
Legislature to follow the method OF
classification required by Section OF
Article XII. of the organic law, as
adopted by the Act of the Legislature OF
1883.
The section of the Constitution just
referred to, or so much thereof as Is
necessary to explain the position of de-
PENDANT, is as follows: Corporations
for municipal purposes shall not be ere
ated by special laws; but the Legisia-
ture by general laws, shall provide fol
the incorporation, organization, ana
classification. in proportion to popula-
ton, of cities and towns, which laws
may be altered amended or repealed.
That portion of Section 1O3 OF
the Code of Civil Procedure providing
for Justices of the Peace for cities OF
the population of Sacramento, reads as
follows: In every city hav-
ing $4,000 and not more than 34,Oou
inhabitants, there shall be one Justice
of the Peace" = This section
then goes on to provide that Justices
of the Peace and Justices Courts OF
cities shall have the same jurisdiction
civil and criminal as Justices of the
Peace of townships and Township JUS
tees Courts. The Legislature of 1888
PASSED an Act classifying municipal
corporations within the State of Cali
fo1nia. as follows: Those having g
population of more than 100000 shall
constitute the first class; those having
a population of more than 10000 anc
not exceeding 100000 shall constitute
the second class; those having popula
ton of more than 1900 and not ex'
ceeding 10000, shall constitute the
third class: and so on. Under this
classification, Sacramento would be
city of the third class 1t is claimed
that legislation, determining the mum
Der of Justices of the Peace of cities, /:
not valid because not general in its ma
ture, if it is not based upon the above
classified Ion of municipal corporations
1t will be observed that Sec
ton 1903 of the Code of Civil
Procedure does not classify cite:
or municipal corporations for the
purpose Oh ueleI TIC
OF Justices of the Peace upon the elias
sification of municipal corporations es
tablished by the Act of 1883, supra, ano
which classification for municipal pur
poses is required as has been seen, by
Section g of Article X1. of the Constr
tuition. The Legislature derives its au
thority to determine the number Of Jus
tees of the Peace to be elected in IN
corporated cities and towns and cities
and counties. from Section IL, Article
VI. of the Constitution, which reads a.
follows:
The Legislature shall determine thu
number of Justices of the Peace to b'
elected in townships, Incorporated cit
les and towns, or cities and counties
and shall fix by law the powers, duties
and responsibilities of Justices Of tn
Peace"
Decisions affirming the constitution
ality of Section 103 of the Code of Civl
Procedure have been rendered by tn
Supreme Court of this State, and, TO
this reason, it would seem unnecessar.
at this time 70 go into any EXTENSIVE
reasoning to sustain the constitutional
ity of that law; yet, / feel that there il
a misapprehension of the requirement
of the Constitution upon the point un
der consideration. perhaps growing gu
of a failure to draw or perceive the es
sential distinction between a Justice
Court, as contemplated and created b,
the Constitution, and a court organizes
or established by the Legislature ex
clusively for municipal purposes.
shall therefore, besides relying upol
the decisions of our Supreme Cour
above referred to-notably, Bishop VS.
The City of Oakland, 50 California, 81
venture q few of my own reasons 70
the opinion that I entertain that Sec
ton 103 Of the Code of Civil Procedure
so far as it relates to Justices of tn
Peace of incorporated cities and towns
in no way offends any of the provision
of our Constitution. The Suprem'
Court. in the case just mentioned, says
BY Section 103 of the Code of Civi
Procedure, as enacted in the statute
lust referred to. it is provided that ii
every city having 20,000 and not NOR
than 1Ga.0G0 inhabitants. two justices
of the Peace are to be elected by thu
kIH