Arizona republican., 1915-04-23
.3.3O2
Appeals to Superior Court
Superintendent of Insurance.

Total ..........3, ,302 Appeals to Superior Court In addition to the money collected there are several hundred dollars in fines tied up in the superior court upon appeals from the judgment of your city court and this money should have been in the city treasury had the appeals been heard by the superior court, as they should have been. within reas- enable time. No power deVolves upon the city court to press hearing upon said appeals. but some one representing the city should urge trial of these actions before all the witnesses for the city are dead or out of reach when needed.
 Unmerited Criticism
 There has been some harsh criticism of the city court because of the num- erous fines assessed and collected dur ing the past year. This criticism can be credited largely to either ignorance or malevolence on part of those com blaming. The court is not responsible for arrests made: for law violations. nor for the laws violated, by persons tried and punished. The court was not influenced either by friendship or en- mity but guided by evidence submit ltu Ht ldN WdS tiehi' 0RP+ANN and leniency shown where merited or the law permitted. City ordinances for many misdemeanors provide a mini mum as well as a maximum penalty, and in passing sentence upon guilty offenders the court cannot go below, and only in very few cases has found it necessary to go above. the minimum.
 Penalties for Speeding
 The ordinance regulating and limit ing the speed of all motor vehicles provides penalties for a first second and third offense. For the first of fense a fine not to exceed $100. For second offense a fine of not less than $50. nor more than S100, and for third offense not less than $100 nor more than $250. A jail sentence is pro- yided in lieu of a fine and at the option of the court.
 In second and third offenses the court cannot go below the minimum, but may use discretion as between that and the maximum.
 The court declared a rule making $10 the fine for first offenders and only few offending have been assessed a larger sum. Nowhere else in the Unit ed States, in a city the size of Phoenix, have such light fines been assessed for ; such an offense, and the reason for do- ing this was and is due to the heavy minimum penalties for second and third time offenders.
 City Ordinances
 The city court derives it's power from city ordinances and many of these were enacted twenty or more years ago. They have not only outlived their use fitness, but in some instances are so antiquated as to become farcical when applied to present conditions. While the object of law is to prevent l or correct injustice being done to per son and property, and the punishment provided for wrong doing is supposed to fit the crime, you should in ordin- ances enacted recognize clean cut line of demarcation as between the in jury done in similar breaches of the law, and as the state laws provide, be- tween offenses consciously or uncon sciously committed, hence I suggest that several of the heavy minimum penalties be reduced and the court be given discretion to apply penalties up to the maximum.
 Increased Jurisdiction Since January 16t, when the sale of intoxicating liquors was prohibited by an amendment to our state constitu tion, the work of the city court has