Chapman v. People ex rel. Beard
| Decision Date | 08 February 1897 |
| Parties | CHAPMAN v. PEOPLE ex rel. BEARD. [1] |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Error to district court, Arapahoe county.
Mandamus by the people of the state of Colorado, on the relation of Harry A. Beard, against Charles A. Chapman. Judgment for relator, and defendant appeals. Reversed.
R.D Rees and W.T. Rogers, for plaintiff in error.
Goudy & Twitchell, for defendant in error.
The ancient writ of mandamus has been used to accomplish many beneficent purposes, and its use is exemplified in many and various ways, but in none that I have observed has its original prerogative nature been sought to be applied to such novel uses as in the present proceeding. This may be accurately described as one brought to compel a justice of the peace to live and have his office on a particular side of an imaginary line. The petition on which the relator rested his rights substantially recited his citizenship and residence in what was formerly known as "Justice Precinct No. 6." His rights, if any, are derived from the fact of that citizenship and residence, and from the official position and public duties of the plaintiff in error, which flowed from his election as a justice in that particular precinct. At an election antecedent to the commencement of the proceedings, Chapman was elected justice of the peace in justice precinct No. 6. This justice precinct was composed of various election precincts in the county of Arapahoe, and, at the time of Chapman's election included within its boundaries some parts of Highlands Valverde, Barnum, and Colfax. Afterwards, by proceedings under a permissive statute, and as the result of an election held thereunder, Highlands became a part of the city of Denver, which is entirely located in Arapahoe county. Subsequent to this annexation, the board of county commissioners, acting under the authority of two statutes,--one the act of 1883, found in the Session Laws of that year, at page 121, and under another act, passed in 1891, and found in the Session Laws of that year, at page 116,--altered the boundaries of the original justice precinct No. 6, consolidated it with precinct No. 2, and thereby reduced the number of precincts in the city of Denver, enlarged the boundaries of precinct No. 2, and limited, by the resolution which was adopted, the number of justices which should thereafter exercise the functions of that office within the newly-created precinct. The board of supervisors undertook, by their resolution, to somewhat legislate respecting this change in particulars over which, according to the statutes, they had no legislative jurisdiction. The resolution provided that their action and resolution should not in any way extend the territorial limits of the present incumbents holding the office of justice, but that their territorial jurisdiction should remain the same as it had theretofore been during their term of office. This part of the resolution may be rejected as of no avail in the present discussion, because the jurisdiction or authority of the justice is in no measure dependent on the action of the board of supervisors when he has once been elected to office, but is entirely controlled by the constitution of the state and the statutes which have been passed thereunder. After the passage of this resolution, Chapman moved his office from the north side of the Platte (where he had theretofore been, and probably was compellable to be, under the statutes) to the south side of the river, and into the more populous part of Denver. He opened up an office on Larimer street, and proceeded to do business. Thereupon the relator filed his petition, whereby he sought simply a writ commanding Chapman, at such time as the court might specify, to remove his office from Larimer street to the territorial limits of the former justice precinct No. 6, and there maintain it. This was the only relief sought, and the petition has...
To continue reading
Request your trial