Case Name: STATE v. GOODALL
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1916-11-28
Citations: 82 Or. 329
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE v. GOODALL.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 82
Pages: 329–334

Head Matter:
Argued October 31,
reversed November 28,
affirmed on rehearing December 12, 1916.
STATE v. GOODALL.
(160 Pac. 595.)
Criminal Law — Justices of the Peace — Jurisdiction of Subject Matter cannot be Waived.
1. On appeal from a conviction in a Justice’s Court, the only jurisdiction acquired by the Circuit Court is simply that of an appellate tribunal, and once a question of jurisdiction presents itself in any stage of a proceeding, and it is discovered that the court has no jurisdiction of the subject matter, it is the duty of the court to refuse to proceed further, for jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be waived.
[As to power of Superior Court with respect to justice’s judgment where transcript has been filed in that court, see note in Ann. Cas. 1914A, 415.]
Criminal Law — Indictment and Information — Sufficiency of Statement —Statutes.
2. Where the facts stated in the complaint show that the defendant has done something that the law prohibits, such pleading is sufficient under the statute, and any objection to the information is waived by failure to specifically demur, on the ground that it does not set out the offense with the particularity required by Title XVIII, Chapter 7, of Civ. Code, except as to the jurisdiction of the court or that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a crime.
Pleading — Special Demurrer — Statutes.
3. Special demurrers are now abolished; therefore the statute contemplates but one demurrer to a pleading, and any objections not set forth therein are waived, unless they go to the jurisdiction of the court or to the point that the facts stated do not constitute a crime: Sections 1491,1499, L. O. L.
From Union: John W. Knowles, Judge.
In Banc. Statement by Ms. Justice Benson.
Upon a trial before a justice of tbe peace, tbe defendant, Scott Goodall, was convicted of the crime defined by Section 2103, L. O. L., from which judgment he took an appeal to the Circuit Court, where, upon a trial being had, he was again convicted and sentenced, and now prosecutes his appeal to this court.
Reversed. Aeeirmed on Rehearing.
For appellant there was a brief over the names of Mr. Turner Oliver and Mr. Joel H. Richardson, with an oral argument by Mr. Oliver.
For the State there was a brief with oral arguments by Mr. Colon R. Eberhard, District Attorney, and Mr. Geo. M. Brown, Attorney General.
An indictment not charging the means of “torture,” when directly raised, has 'been held insufficient in State v. Watkins, 101 N. C. 702 (8 S. E. 346), and sufficient in State v. Falkenham, 73 Md. 463 (21 Atl. 370). Reporter.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Benson
delivered the opinion of the court.
The jurisdiction of a justice of the peace to try criminal cases is limited by Sections 2411 and 2412, L. O. L., to the crimes enumerated in the former and the maximum penalties named in the latter. Cruelty to animals is not included in the sections mentioned in Section 2411, and the maximum penalties named in Section 2103 exceed the limit prescribed in Section 2412. The power of the justice in this case was confined to conducting a preliminary examination with a view to a subsequent investigation of the charge by a grand jury. The only jurisdiction ácquired by the Circuit Court was simply that of an appellate tribunal. In Evcms v. Christian, 4 Or. 375, this court says:
"If the court below had no jurisdiction to proceed, this court, which possesses only appellate jurisdiction, could acquire none by the appeal. And when a question of jurisdiction presents itself in any stage of a proceeding, and it is discovered that the court has no jurisdiction, either over the parties or the subject matter of the cause, it is the duty of the court on its own motion to refuse to proceed further. Any attempt to exercise judicial functions otherwise than as authorized by law would be a nullity and an idle waste of time."
Nor can the lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter be waived: 12 Cyc. 228. It follows that the judgment of the lower court must be reversed and the cause dismissed, and it is so ordered.
Reversed. Affirmed on Rehearing.