Dobson v. State

• Decision Date: 08 June 1901
• Citation: 63 S.W. 796
• Parties: DOBSON v. STATE.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 796

63 S.W. 796

DOBSON v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

June 8, 1901.

Appeal from circuit court, Independence county; James W. Butler, Special Judge.

Thomas Dobson was convicted of being the father of a bastard child, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Thomas Dobson was convicted of being the father of a bastard child at a trial by jury had before the county judge of Independence county. Judgment was rendered against him in favor of the mother of the child for the sum of $12.50 for lying-in expenses, and the further sum of $1.50 per month from the birth of the child until it should attain the age of 7 years; and he was ordered to give bond for the payment of such monthly dues and for indemnity to the county, as required by statute. The trial did not take place at a regular or adjourned term of the county court, but on a day appointed by the county judge in vacation. Afterwards the defendant filed a petition in the circuit court alleging that the judgment was void, and asking that the same be quashed. A writ of certiorari was thereupon granted by the circuit judge, and a transcript of the proceedings and judgment of the county court were brought before the circuit court for review. But the circuit court, being of the opinion that the judgment of the county court was valid, affirmed the same, and dismissed the petition. Dobson appealed.

J. C. Yancey, for appellant. H. S. Coleman, for appellee.

RIDDICK, J.

The only question raised by this appeal is whether the act of 1879 regulating proceedings in cases of bastardy is a valid and constitutional statute. The constitution of the state gives the county courts exclusive original jurisdiction in all matters relating to bastardy. Const. 1874, art. 7, § 28. The legislature in 1874 passed an act regulating the procedure before the county courts in such cases. Among other matters, this act provided that, if a complaint charging any person with being the father of a bastard child should be made before the county judge in vacation, the judge should issue his warrant commanding the officer to have the accused person before the next term of the county court held thereafter. The act of 1879 under consideration, amended this statute of 1875, and provided that, upon such complaint being filed before the county judge in vacation, he should issue his warrant "commanding the officer to have the person accused before the judge at any time that may be fixed by the judge in said warrant for the trial." It is contended by appellant that this act is void, for the reason that it attempts to confer upon the county judge in vacation, as distinguished from the county court, the right to hear and determine bastardy cases. The language of the act certainly furnishes ground for this contention, and at first thought we did not clearly see how this construction of the statute could be avoided. But further consideration has changed our opinion, and convinced a majority of us that the statute should be upheld. It is a well-known rule that statutes are presumed to be framed in accordance with the constitution, and should not be held invalid for repugnance thereto, unless such conflict be clear and unmistakable. Black, Const. Law, § 35. "In the exposition of a statute it is the duty of the courts to seek to ascertain and carry out the intention of the legislature in its enactment, and to give full effect to such intention; and they are bound, when practicable, so to construe the statute as to give it force and validity, rather than to avoid it, or render it nugatory." Cooley, Const. Lim. (6th Ed.) 219. Now, while it is true that the author of this statute, judging from the language used, does not appear to have had a very clear conception of the distinction between the powers of a judge and a court, yet these words are often used as convertible or...