District Court for Dist. IX v. Williams

• Decision Date: 20 August 1970
• Citation: 268 A.2d 812
• Parties: . Ruth WILLIAMS and State Employees Appeals Board. Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

Page 812

268 A.2d 812

DISTRICT COURT FOR DISTRICT IX of the State of Maine v. Ruth WILLIAMS and State Employees Appeals Board.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Aug. 20, 1970.

John W. Benoit, Jr., Deputy Atty. Gen., Augusta, Sumner J. Goffin, Portland, for plaintiff.

George A. Wathen, Augusta, for defendants.

Before WILLIAMSON, C. J., and WEBBER, MARDEN, DUFRESNE, WEATHERBEE, and POMEROY, JJ.

POMEROY, Justice.

Prior to September 8, 1969, Ruth Williams was a clerical assistant in the District Court, District IX, Portland. She had been appointed to this position by the Chief Judge of the District Court who acted pursuant to 4 M.R.S.A. 159. As such clerical assistant she was an 'employee in the judicial service of the State' and thus in unclassified service. 5 M.R.S.A. 711(4).

On September 8, 1969, the Chief Judge of the District Court notified her in writing that her employment was terminated October 1, 1969.

It is agreed she seasonably complied with the appeal procedures described in 5 M.R.S.A. 751-753. The District Court responded by filing a motion to dismiss the appeal in the Appeals Board. Upon this motion being denied, appeal was seasonably taken to the Superior Court pursuant to Rule 80B M.R.Civ.P.

The cause is before us on report from the Superior Court for determination of the issues presented by the pleadings.

The issue becomes: Does the State Employees Appeals Board have jurisdiction to hear and decide the appeal of an employee of the Judicial Department of the State who has been discharged from her employment by the Chief Judge of the District Court?

We answer it does not.

Article III, Sec. 1, Constitution of Maine declares:

'The powers of this government shall be divided into three distinct departments, the legislative, executive and the judicial.'

There follows in Sec. 2:

'No person or persons, belonging to one of these departments, shall exercise any of the powers properly belonging to either of the others, except in cases herein expressly directed or permitted.'

Article VI, Sec. 1, of the Constitution authorizes the Legislature from time to time to establish courts other than the Supreme Judicial Court. The District Court was created by the Legislature (4 M.R.S.A. 151), acting under this constitutionally granted power.

Even though this is so, the judicial powers of the District Court are conferred by the Constitution not by the Act creating the Court. Gray v. Hakenjos, 366 Mich. 588, 115 N.W.2d 411 (1962).

Upon its coming into being the District Court became a part of the judicial branch of the Government which branch is, under the American political scheme, coequal with the executive branch and the legislative branch.

'The division of governmental powers into executive, legislative and judicial in this country is a subject familiar, not only to lawyers and students, but is a part of the common knowledge of the citizen. It represents, probably, the most important principle of government declaring and guaranteeing the liberties of the people, and has been so considered, at least, since the famous declaration of Montesequieu that 'there can be no liberty * * * if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers * * *."

Searle v. Yensen, 118 Neb. 835, 226 N.W. 464, 69 A.L.R. 257.

In Bowden v. Cumberland County, 123 Me. 359, 123 A. 166 at 169, our Court quoted 7 R.C.L. 1050, as follows:

'Of the element of sovereignty which is exclusively and intrinsically judicial, the people gave the courts all they had to give; and while the domain of the judiciary is not so extensive as that of the other departments no other power can enter that domain without a violation of the Constitution, for within it the power of the judiciary is dominant and exclusive. When any power is conferred upon a court of justice, to be exercised by it as a court, in the manner and with the formalities used in its ordinary proceedings, the action of such court is to be regarded as judicial, irrespective of the original nature of the power.'

The State Employees Appeals Board (5 M.R.S.A. 751 et seq.) is a part of the executive branch of our Government.

If jurisdiction can be exercised by the Employees Appeals Board in the circumstances here described, there results a review by the executive branch of the government of the action of...