The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1904-01-22
OPINION OF COLUMBIA LAWYERS
Majority Think that Hold-over Mag
istrates Constitute the oourt.-f
So, Everything is Lovely; If
Not, Where are
We aAtan

lion OF the EintCct Al 49, 1880
snrung ont of 1.-THE question OF
vnerhsr or not Maury County now has
4 Quarterly Court or not. ana wnetnst
Il Sas had SINCE the redistricting bill
went info effect last March.
The oecislon If the court, 1t Will pc
remembered, was that IN four ols-
tricts of the county, viz: the nrst,
xourth. fifth and ninth. the ola magls-
trates would hold over; that In all
the rest of the districts fhe magistrates
were abolished ana could not be consid
cred as rart or the court Inc
supreme Court decision was not clear ON
the question OF the legality OF the new
court house appropriation, saying tnat
that specific question was not before II.
This was TO he regretted, tor It the court
had gone into this question, the legal
ity Of all the acts Of the old court since
last March, would have been settled.
Do the hold lover magistrates from tne
first. fourth, tifth and ninth districts
provide nucleus OF legal magistrates
which may be considered as constitut-
ING County Courty This Is the ques-
tion and it is one upon which opin
. IONS ,asy. Some * ttS .c-csnS az
vers of the bar are OF the 0elieI
thst the magistrates from the ais
s,icfs referred to aid constitute the
Quarterly Court, from last March 70
the nresent time. 1t Is SAID that the
Justice delivering the opinion OF the
CONT. expressly stated that the Abolish
Yn0 II the magistrates In certain
sf3etricrs did not leave the county with
ant 4 Quarterly Court. Another member
n tDe Supreme Court In talking with an
attorney from Columbia In regard to
tina matter, asked him how the hold
over magistrates voted on the court
honee uroposition. When told that
majority Of them voted In favor OF IT.,
the Supreme Court Justice said !:
ssWoli. I am glad Of that. From
this remark, the attorney seemed TO
think that the court would have held
that the court house appropriation was
valid. had the question been n0f're
tnem. AZ 3 matter of fact, nine our
a the ten hold-over magistrates who
were present when the court mouse
appropriation was made, voted Ior
the appropriation.
III the hold.over magistrates con-
stltute the Quarterly Court at present.
then all the acts of the court at tne
last three terms, where majority OF
the hold over Magistrates were IRE
sent ana voting In the affirmative, -
valid; except that three-fifths OF tine
magistrates entitled TO attend must
have been present. And on this point
comes up another question. Inc statutS
- Divides that three-ffths of ali the
just,ces entitled to be present shall De
required to make appropriations. Inc
Question bAs been raised, cOnsideri nR
that the nOld-Ov0r magistrates consti-
tute the court, does the statute require
the presence of three-hfths OF the
hOld-O magistrates, or Cnree-nIt
q the magistrates from All the new
nine dlstrictsY In other words, VINO
ehell BE- considered % being ontitied
to attends It would appear, 1t seems,
that If three fftns OF the hold-over
magistrates were present. that was
sufficient, for surely. they were the only
iustlCes entitled to attend. The maRistra-
tes from the abolished districts certainty
cDul0 NOT DE considered AZ enti tea
10 attend, neither could the magistrafes
4 from the new districts Otner tnan TUG
hold overs be considered 40 eolng en-
titled TO attend, for they bad not peen
oie I'D.
Some have thought that all appro-
priations by the court since Marcn
W0t4 lIN6MMA OOS0uo0b " SA>
the hold.uyer magistrates as CONSTITUTE
ting the court they only represented
about half tine county, and 1t would %
taxation without representation Tor
4 them "a levy hundred thousand dol
lar tax on the people OF tine entire coun-
~. half Of whom were not represented
This IL met, however, BY th~ statement
tnat should the justices from any GER
ram district die, or for any cause De-
come insiigible, the business Of the
eourr. its appropriations etc., could
not Be stopped on that account.
II the hold-over magistrates Coneti.
tute the court. the Court IL composed
e preeeut Of twelve members, two
each from the first, fourth, and fifth ais
tricts, four from the nln.h and one each
from the corporations IT Mt. Pleasant
and Sprsng Hill. Some have thought that
the latter would also be abolished, be-
came the Mt Pleasant and Spring Hill
dlstricts we're abolished, but the magis-
trates from these places we're not
elected BY the people Of the district,
(. hnt ~ the voters Of the corporations.
To supreme Court has even held
shat = corporation magistrate, elected
~ the voters OF an incorporated town,
sioee not lose his Office, even when
town aboiishes Its charter. That ne
must serve ont his term.
Another puzzIing question -, are
those couples who we're married by the
abolished magistrates since last March
legally married. This question is caus-
inc grave concern to those couples 90
usrried, and they are shuddering over
the possibility tiist after all they may
!. not be eAlly married
& whether the hvld-oyer magistrates
constitute the Quarterly Court Or not,
she tnlng for the now court, when
elected, to do. Il to ratify eli that the
old court hes done q re LAST WIRES
snestlngs. This would remove all
doubt e 10 the legality Of tine eppro-
priatious that have been made during
~ inst nino months. and clear up the
muddlsd condition IN which the county
now fnds ITSELF
I. 4sI