Arizona republican., 1902-03-16
BURNETT WINS
In His Fee Case Against Maricopa
 County.

Judge Street sat yesterday for the last time in the capacity of judge of the district court and in a half day ses- sion disposed of all business imme- diately pending. The most important case decided by him was that of Jus tice J. M- Burnett against Maricopa county, in which judgment was given the plaintiff. Notice of appeal was given and the perfecting of it was begun in order that the matter might be brought before the territorial su- preme court which will sit tomorrow.
 In this case the board of supervisors, at the instance of the district attorneys office, had refused to allow the plaintiff certain fees in cases in which warrants had been issued without the consent or advice of the district attorney. The re- fusal to approve these claims was based on law passed by the last legislature requiring that justices at county seats should issue no warrants without the advice of the district attorney The plaintiff contended that the law was in valid for two reasons. The first was that its arbitrary discrimination against the county seat precincts was in contravention of the Harrison act, which. among other things. prohibits special legislation. It was also con tended that it was void because the office of justice of the peace. having been estab ablished by the organic law. the legislature itself only a coordinate branch of the territorial government. while it might establish methods of procedure for the courts and to a ter tain extent restrict their jurisdiction, could not interfere with them to the extent of abolishing the fees in any case.
 These contentious were sustained by Judge Street in long written opinion in which reference is made to several California cases in which it was held by the supreme court of that state that the legislature could not do what the Arizona legislature had tried to do. In the course of his opinion the court said that if the legislature had power to do this thing it would have power to dis criminate against justices precincts which are not at county seats. The opinion concludes That Par. 719 of the penal code is invalid, oeirg in conflict with the organic law of Arizona as passed by congress, in two respects; that it interferes with the constitution al functions of justices courts and that it is special legislation
 Another matter of local interest which has been before the court for some time was decided. It was the case of the territory against A. Magnani. It had it's origin in the police court last summer. The defendant was ar rested for an alleged resistance of the police, who were trying to arrest him at his place of business. He tried to show in police court that he had offered the police no other resistance than 10 try to explain to them that he had vio- lated no ordinance and that for some time he had been subjected by the police to a system of persecution. Judgment was rendered against him and he took an appeal to the district court. His demurrer to the complaint against him for the case had to be be- gun de novo was sustained, he Was ordered discharged and his bond eX- onerated.
 In the appealed case of Perez against Gee Tom, the plaintiff was given judgment for costs. This was a case in which there was a dispute about a load of wood, the amount at issue being $1. After the parties had arrived at the terms of a compromise a friend persuaded them to go into court. At