The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1898-02-01

PENDANT in his Justice Court. and no
validity could attach to his judgments
rendered in any other form. He might
as well have tried him by drumhead
court-martial as to have rendered judg-
ment in an illegal Police Court. 1t is
essential to the validity of judgment
that the court which renders it shall
have jurisdiction. The court which rem
dered this judgment, being an uncon-
stitutional tribunal had no jurisdic-
ton whatever The case of ex parte
Reilly (S5 California, 632) has not been
overlooked. The views here expressed
may be found at variance with those
of the earlier case, but We think the
sounder construction of the law is that
here given The opinion was concurred
in by justices Harrison, Temple. Me-
Farland and Garoutte. Chief Justice
Beatty dissented upon the authority of
Elk parte Reilly, supra.
l have deliberately quoted from this
decision because it seems to me that it
is clearly decisive of the point in ques>
ton, and it necessarily follows from
this authority that the petitioner. hav-
ing been tried, convicted and punished
in forum that Rad and has no exist
ence. is, by virtue of such pretended
proceedings. illegally restrained OF his
liberty.
While this is determinative of the I'LL
innate point sought by the petitioner
in this proceeding, in the investigation
Of the propositions urged herein, there
has been suggested to my mind a queS-
ton of Which | shall take occasion to
speak, and which may be of some no
ment to the Justices of the Peace with
in the municipal limits OF the City 81
Sacramento. Section 81 of the Charter
provides: In all cases in which Ills.
Justice is a party. or in which he is
interested or related to either party
by consaE guinity or affinity within the
third degree and in case of his SICK
ness, absence or inability to act. any
Justice of the Peace of the County Ct
Sacramento may, at the request of the
Mayor, act in the place and stead of
said City Justice
l am Of the opinion, based upon The
above reasoning, that the Legislature
had no right. by concurrent resolution,
to invest the chief executive officer OF
the municipality with power of naming
any Justice of the Peace of the county
ated in the section above quoted, of
City Justice of the Peace. The generaf
| law concerning City Justices of the
Peace provides, among other things,
that mo person shall be eligible 10 the
office of Justice of the Peace, in any
city having over 5000 inhabitants,
who has not been admitted to practice
law IN a court of record" And I think
Of 5-
called rpon for any reason authorized
by law, to preside in the court of the
City Justice of the Peace, he must pos
sess such qualifications of such City
Justice as are prescribed by the general
law. Under Section 81 of the Charter
the Mayor could name man who had
never been admitted to practice in a
court of record And such power ex
ercised by the Mayor would. in some
cases, invest certain Justices of the
Peace with a larger jurisdiction than is
intended to be conferred upon them
by law. For instance, a Justice of the
Peace elected in country district, hav-
ing no city ordina noes or. regulations to
be enforced, and who was not elected
with a view of trying such cases, could,
by the mere act of the Mayor, be called
into the city and thus invested with
power TO exercise jurisdiction which he
was not elected with view of exercis-
ing nor qualified under the law to ex-
ercise.
The second point of petitioner, that
the sentence imposed upon him is void
because in excess of Jurisdiction of the
court, it is unnecessary here to dis
cuss.
1t follows from the foregoing that, at
the time of the trial and conviction OF
the petitioner. as above stated, there
was not, nor is there now, such tri-
bunal as a Police Court" existing in
the City of Sacramento, and, hence, the
proceedings against petitioner We're
void ard he must, therefore, be dis
charged. f