Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1911-05-22
OREGON SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
Text Published BY Courtesy F. Turner Reporter Of
Supreme Court

NRbAh6 AAAuOA MlAlllh llb III
cluded in said prohibition order ex-
cept as in this law provided =
Section IL requires the court tC
make an order declaring the result
If the result shall be against prohi-
bition. Laws Or 1905, p. AZ, L. o. L..
Secs. 1929, 1880.
There shall be term of the coon
ty court convene in each of the sew
eral counties of this state for the
transaction of probate and all civil
business cognizable by county courts
except the transaction of county bus
mess, on the first Monday in each
month y" L. o. L., Sec. 2931
Under the statute last quoted the reg
ular June term of the county court OF
Morrow county began on Tuesday
June 2, 1908, the first Monday of that
month being nonjudicial day on ac-
count of the general election then be-
ing held. A term of court is that
period of time provided by or in pur-
suance of some public law within
which the court may hold it's sessions
and transact its business. State "
Edmunds, 104 Pac 430. The term
continues from the time appointed by
law to the final adjournment or until
the lapse of the term by operation of
law. N, P. Ry. Co. v. Hand, Z Kan
$3.50; Labadie " Dean, AZ Tex. 80, 100
De Leon V. Barrett, % S. c. 412; Peo-
pie V. Central City Bank, SO Barb
412.
Section 97S, L. o. L., declares that
If no Judge attend on the day ap-
pointed for holding court, before 4
o'clock in the afternoon, the court
shall stand adjourned until the next
day at 9 o'clock; and if no Judge at
tend on that day, before 4 o'clock in
the afternoon, it shall then stand ad-
journed for the term" The situation
contemplated by this section does not
appear in the record before us. Pre-
suming that the county judge of Nor
row county as public officer per-
formed his duty regularly, for aught
that appears in the record, he was
present ready for the transaction of
business at the time and place an
pointed by law for holding court and
remained there from day to dav
thereafter during the term. Re-
duced to its last analysis, all that is
revealed by the stipulation on that
point is that there was no business
transacted at the term until some
days after the beginning of the June
term in the year 1908. While this is
creditable to the people of Morrow
county and speaks we'll for the peace
and good order of that community, it
did not effect a lapse of the term of
court. Only the order of the court it.
self adjourning for the term or the
operation of law resulting from the
coming on of the next term or the
like could produce that result.
In the construction of the different
parts of a statute we must keep in
view the design of the act and so con-
strue its terms, if it can be done
within reason, as to effect the general
purpose of the legislation in question.
y Lewis Spth. Statute Con. Sec. $40.
With this rule in mind we may well
concede that in particular sense the
word session" as applied to a court
refers to its actual sitting and tran
saction of business and yet, consider
ing that a session of court cannot be
held except during a term, it is a
reasonable construction of the act to
hold that it necessarily includes the
legislative appointment of a term of
the county court for the special pur-
poses of the act, at least, for the
eleventh day after an election under
the local option law, if there is no
regular term at that time. In other
words, the people, in enacting the
statute requiring a session of court,
must have intended to prescribe also
that without which a session could
not exist in contemplation of law,
VIZ: a term during which the ses-
sion should be held. In this sense
the. local option act may be conceded
to be supplementary to Sec. 1881, l..
o. L., prescribing the regular terms
OF the county courts. 1t may be con-
tended that such a term would be
held or not, according to whether or
not there was a local option election
and that parties interested would not
have sufficient notice to give them
their day in court to oppose the max
ing OF the order declaring the result.
The answer to that argument is that
the action of the county court is part
of the election procedure under that
law and the notices of election re-
quired by its terms serve as warning
to all concerned that an order of the
county court will follow by operation
OF law as a natural consequence of
local option election.
Seeing that the order was actually
made on the eleventh day after the
election 1t was not necessary for the
purposes of this case to consider the
effect of the words "or as soon there
after as practicable" as affecting the
date provided for holding the special
session" of the county court.
We conclude that the order of the
county court prohibiting the sale of
intoxicating liquors within Morrow
county as whole was regularly
made as provided by law and that the
conviction of the defendant was q
proper legal conclusion resulting
from the facts stipulated. The judg-
ment is affirmed.
Justice Bean, having heard this
case in the court below, took no part
IN 40 -