Mannie v. Hatfield

• Decision Date: 30 November 1908
• Citation: 118 N.W. 817,22 S.D. 475
• Parties: CHARLES W. MANNIE et al., Plaintiffs and appellants, v. JACOB HATFIELD, Police Magistrate of the City of Huron, Defendant and respondent.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

22 S.D. 475

118 N.W. 817

CHARLES W. MANNIE et al., Plaintiffs and appellants,

v.

JACOB HATFIELD, Police Magistrate of the City of Huron, Defendant and respondent. South Dakota Supreme Court Appeal from Circuit Court, Beadle County, SD Hon. Chas. S. Whiting, Judge Reversed W. A. Lynch, C. A. Kelley, James Byrnes Attorneys for appellants. Crawford, Taylor & Fairbank Attorneys for respondent. Opinion filed Nov. 30, 1908

CORSON, J.

This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from an order of the circuit court refusing to issue a mandamus to the police magistrate of the city of Huron commanding him to transmit to said circuit court the record, pleadings, and documents connected with a certain action theretofore tried and determined by the said police magistrate in which the plaintiffs herein were defendants and to allow an appeal to be taken therein. It is alleged, in substance, in the affidavit of the plaintiffs presented to the circuit court, that the plaintiffs were arrested upon a complaint and warrant issued by the defendant as police magistrate of the city of Huron charging them with the crime of keeping a house of ill fame in that city; that the plaintiffs being arraigned, and pleading not guilty to the charge, they demanded a jury trial, which was granted, and upon such trial they were found guilty and adjudged to pay a fine by the court; that immediately upon the entering of said judgment these plaintiffs gave notice that they appealed from said judgment, and the whole thereof, to the circuit court, and immediately thereafter and within the time allowed by law tendered a bond in the penal sum of $200 with good and sufficient security to perfect said appeal; that said appeal was denied by the said justice, and the bond so offered rejected by him; that said magistrate still refuses to permit said appeal, and refuses to transmit to said circuit court the record in said action. Wherefore the plaintiffs ask that a peremptory writ of mandamus be issued to the said defendant as police magistrate commanding him forthwith to transmit said proceeding to the circuit court.

To the affidavit of the plaintiffs the defendant filed an answer, alleging that the city of Huron is incorporated under special act of the Legislature of the territory of Dakota passed March 8, 1883; that section 27 of said special act or charter provides: “In all cases arising under the ordinances of the city tried in said court by the justice without a jury where the judgment is for imprisonment or a fine exceeding $20 an appeal may be taken by the defendant to the district court of said county”; that in this case the case was at the request of the plaintiffs tried to a jury, and therefore no appeal allowed to the circuit court of Beadle county, and said attempted appeal was denied. Upon the case coming on for hearing before the court, it was ordered that the application for mandamus be refused. In support of the ruling of the circuit court in denying the writ, the respondent contends that, the territorial Legislature having provided in the charter of the city of Huron that on the trial of cases arising under the ordinances of that city tried to the court without a jury an appeal might be taken by the defendant, it necessarily follows that under said provision a case tried by a jury was not appealable, and the verdict of the jury and judgment thereon were final and not subject to appeal. It is contended by the appellants that this provision in the charter of the city of Huron was in effect repealed by section 1275 of the Revised Political Code, which reads as follows:

“In all cases, before the said justice, arising under the ordinances of the city, an appeal may be taken by the defendant to the county or circuit court of the county as in other appeals from justice court. …”

And it is further contended by the appellants that this section of the Political Code was fully authorized and required by section 34 of article 5 of the Constitution, in which it is provided:

“All laws relating to courts shall be general and of uniform operation throughout the state and the organization, jurisdiction, power, proceedings, and practice of all the courts of the same. class or grade so far as regulated by law shall be uniform. … ”

In the case of Synod of Dakota v. State, 14 LRA 418 (1891), this court held:

“The laws in force when the Constitution was adopted not inconsistent with that instrument remained in force until changed by the state Legislature; but all laws in conflict with that instrument upon its adoption became inoperative and ceased to be of binding force within the state.”

That part of the charter of the city of Huron...