The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1899-10-06

Wichita has city court and police judge
contest, the case will be interesting.
C. c. Clemens, the Populist constitu-
tional authority of Kansas, appears in
the case on the side against the city
court. The Topeka Capital gives the fol-
lowing account of the case:
"a mandamus suit was begun IN the
supreme court yesterday which will have
an important bearing on the validity of
the city courts created by act Of the last
legislature.
THE case as taken up from Justice Nc
Clintock's court in this city. Some time
ago A. F. Chesney brought a suit in that
court in which the money value at stake
was in excess Of the 81 limit set for Jus
tice courts by the act creating the city
courts. McClintock refused to try the
case, holding that it had been taken out
of his Jurisdiction Chesneysbr brought man.
damus proceedings in the supreme court
to compel a trial of the case. McClintocks
attorneys are Rossington, Smith & His
ted. while G. c. Clemens appears for
Chesney
While nominally the defendant in the
mandamus suit is W. S. McClintock, it is
really the officers of the city court of
Topeka, whose jobs depend on beating the
case.
1.-The argument presented by Mr.. Glenn
ems is interesting. 1t will be remembered
that a similar mandamus case to the
present one was brought about a year
ago from Kansas City, Kan. That case
was tried on it's merits and the supreme
court upheld the constitutionality of the
act creating the court. The present case
really amounts to a review of that case.
I'm the Kansas City case the question
was one simply Of the constitutlonality
of the act In the present contention
Mr. Clemens does not ask to have the act
declared uncOnstitutional-but rather to
have the jurisdiction of justices of the
peace restored in certain cities where city
courts have been created, or to have the
curtailment of their authority extend to
all justice courts alike over the state. OF
course if Mr.. Clemens contention is up
held, it will mean that the act of the
legislature was invalid-but the fact re-
mains that he does not question the right
of the legislature to establish city courts,
or any other sort of courts, if established
! concurrent with those of similar rank
with the ones which it is desired may be
! displaced.
1.-THE constitution of the state establish
! ed judiciary, generally speaking. which
! should consist of supreme, district, pro-
/ bate and justices Of the peace courts. All
others created. such as common pleas
courts, appellate courts, etc, are con-
!
| others Of equal rank created by the con-
stitution and whose Jurisdiction cannot
! be taken away by legislative act.
THE legislative act creating city courts
did not abolish them in so many words
! in those cities where courts were Gre
ated, but it limited their jurisdiction to
! civil cases involving a money value of 81.
''Mr. Clemens contention is that this
should have been made a general act to
apply to all justice courts in the state
/ If the act was permissible at all. He
! held. too, that if city courts were to be
established they should in law be made
! concurrent wit hthe justice courts so
/ that a man might use his PLEASURE in
! taking a case to one or the other Mr.
! Clemens pointed out that if the legisla-
! ture be empowered to take away the
! authority of the probate court GneffecO
/ by limiting its jurisdiction to cases in
volving only 81. it could limit the author
/ ity of all other courts created by the
/ constitution and practically annul their
J jurisdiction by a technicality.
After the oral arguments yesterday
! the case was submitted on briefs. The
! case is being watched with intense in
! terest by a number of attorneys IN at
! tendance.
THE cities having city courts created
/ by the legislature to tisplace the justice
! courts are Kansas City Kan. Topeka.
/ Lawrence. Fort Scott, Coffeyville, Tich-
! tia and Atchison