Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-08-19
COURT DECISIONS.
DlGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN
EXCLUSIVELY FOR
viRclNlAN.PiLoT.
Notes Of Cases Recently Decided
Which Are of Interest to
Our People.
MITCHELL v. WITT, JUDGE.

MITCHELL v. WITT. JUDGE.
Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.
July 6, 1900.
THE HUSTINGS COURT OF RICH
MOND HAS NO JURISDICTION TO
PASS UPON THE ELECTION OF
COUNCILMEN FOR SAID CITY.
THE CITY COUNCIL is THE
JUDGE OF THE ELECTION,
QUALIFICATION AND RETURNS
OF ITS MEMBERS.
This was an application to the Su-
preme Court for Il mandamus to re-
quire the judge of the Hastings Court
OF the city of Richmond to try a con-
tested case as to the election of certain
members of the City Council.
The Court says:
From any point of View that may
be taken of sec. 160 OF the Code when
read in connection with sec. log, the
respondent in this cause is without
jurisdiction to hear and determine the
matters complained OF by the petition
ers, for to do so would be fruitless and
unavailing. 1t is true that section 100
provides that when the contest is de-
cided. certificate of election shall be
Granted to the successful party, etc.
but were such certificate awarded in
this case 1t would be wholly ineffec-
tual, as the holder of it upon present
Ing 1t to the Board of Aldermen or
Common Council of the city. as the
case might be, would be met with the
response that the Council was by eX-
press authority under section 1890 the
judge OF the election, qualification and
returns of It's members. and if the
judgment should be that there had
been no valid election in Jackson
Ward of any person to the Common
Council, 1t would likewise be fruitlcss
and unavailing, as section 106 Of the
Code makes no provision for filling the
vacancy.
1t will not be claimed that authority
anywhere exists for respondent to fill
by appointment vacancy in the Com
mon Council of the city adjudged by
him to exist On the contrary, the
statute, as we shall presently see, con-
fers this power expressly upon the
Common Council 1t Is obvious. there
fore, that 1t was not the Legislative in
tent to include within the provisions of
sec. 1G0 members of the Common Coun-
ell of city, but only such officers of
the city as correspondent To the officers
OF the respective counties and districts
of the State-viz: Sheriff. Treasurer,
clerks, Attorney for the Common
wealth. etc When the Legislature
came to legisate generally upon the
government OF cities and towns, 1t pro-
Vidcu by section 1880 that the Council
shall judge OF the election, qualification
and returns of it's members; may fine
them for disorderly behavior. and with
the concurrence of two-thirds of it's
members, cxpcl Il member; and II any
member returned be disqualified or cx-
PEELED, new election to ill the va
cancy shall he held at the same place,
on such day as the Council may pre-
scribe"
These sections do not conflict, nor
are they inconsistent with each other
One. section 100, gives the court juris-
diction upon a proper petition of all
contests over corporation officers; and
the other. section 1890. empowers and
authorizes the Council itself to adjudi-
cate all questions as to election of it's
members.
Whether the allegation of the pctI-
tloners that the candidates for the
Common Council in jackson Ward at
the election of May 24th last cannot
obtain their rights by a contest before
the Council be true or not. section 1880
specifically prcscrbes this as their
remedy. and if it be Intellectual it is
not the fault OF the statute, and this
court is without authority to issue it's
writ Of mandamus to compel the hon
orablc judge of the Hastings Court,
the respondent here. to take iurisdic-
ton and decide upon the complaint. as
he rightly held that he was without
power to do SO.
Denied