Ex Parte Settle.
| Citation | 77 S.E. 496,114 Va. 715 |
| Parties | Ex parte SETTLE. |
| Decision Date | 15 March 1913 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Virginia |
1. Statutes (§ 93*)—General and Special Laws—Trial Justiceh provides for trial justices in all counties having a population greater than 300 inhabitants per square mile, is not violative of Const. 1902, § 63 (Code 1904, p. ccxxiii), prohibiting special or class legislation, though it applies only to one county; the fact that a law applies only to certain territorial districts not rendering it unconstitutional, where it applies to all parts of the state where like conditions exist.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Statutes, Cent. Dig. § 102; Dec. Dig. § 93.*]
2. Evidence (§ 23*)—Judicial Notice—Local Conditions.
Judicial notice may be taken of the fact that by reason of the proximity of the county of Alexandria to large centers of population there is need that special provision be made whereby the law may be efficiently and promptly administered to protect its citizens from lawless elements.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. §§ 29, 30; Dec. Dig. § 23.*]
3. Constitutional Law (§ 48*)—Presumptions as to Statutes—Constitutionality.
Every presumption will be made in favor of the constitutionality of a statute, and every reasonable doubt resolved in favor of its validity, regardless of whether it is wise or proper, and a statute will be held void only when plainly repugnant to some constitutional provision.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Constitutional Law, Cent. Dig. § 46; Dec. Dig. § 48.*]
4. Statutes (§ 141*)—Amendment—Validity.
Acts 1912, c. 347, providing for trial justices in counties of a certain population, being an independent and original act of legislation, does not contravene Const. 1902, § 52 (Code 1904, p. ccxxi), providing that no law shall be amended except the section amended be re-enacted and published at length, even though it may repeal some existing law by implication.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Statutes, Cent. Dig. §§ 48, 198, 209; Dec. Dig. § 141.*]
5. Statutes.(§ 159*)—Repeal by Implication.
While repeals by implication are not favored, yet, if there is an irreconcilable conflict between legislative acts, the most recent act must prevail.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Statutes, Cent. Dig. § 229; Dec. Dig. § 159.*]
6. Courts (§ 42*)—Establishment—Validity op Statute—Trial Justices.
Acts 1912, c. 347, providing for trial justices in counties of a certain population is not violative of Const. 1902, § 87 (Code 1904, p. ccxxxi), providing that the judiciary department shall consist of a Supreme Court of Appeals, circuit courts, city courts, "and such other courts as are hereinafter authorized, " when this section is considered in connection with Const. 1902, § 108 (Code 1904, p. ccxxxvi), providing that the General Assembly shall provide for such justices of the peace as the public interest may require.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. §§ 163-170, 181-183; Dec. Dig. § 42.*]
7. Habeas Corpus (§ 32*)—Matters Determined — Title to Office — Validity of Statute.
The court had jurisdiction in habeas corpus proceedings to determine the constitutionality of a statute under which office was held by the trial justice who committed the petitioner.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Habeas Corpus, Cent. Dig. § 29; Dec. Dig. § 32.*]
Upon a writ of habeas corpus procured by W. B. Settle. Writ dismissed.
R. Gordon Finney, of Rosslyn, for petitioner.
The Attorney General, for defendant.
KEITH, P. The General Assembly of Virginia passed an act which is found in chapter 347 of the Acts of 1912, which provides that that "the said trial justices shall have concurrent jurisdiction with justices of the peace in all civil cases, and from the decision of said trial justices the same right of appeal shall lie to the circuit court of such counties as now lies from said justices of the peace;" that The act then provides for the compensation of the trial justice, and that the clerk of the court shall serve as his clerk, and shall receive for his services the same fees as are now or may hereafter be provided by law for similar services rendered to the circuit court for such county, and that all controversies involving $20 or over may be removed to the circuit court as in other cases before justices of the peace.
In obedience to this act, R. Gordon Finney was appointed trial justice for the county of Alexandria, Va., and imposed a fine upon W. B. Settle, an attorney practicing before him who in the course of his defense of a prisoner before the civil justice denied thatthe said R. Gordon Finney was an official of said county and state and committed Settle to the custody of the jailor of Alexandria county, to be held by him until the fine was paid. Thereupon Settle applied to this court for a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum which was awarded.
In order not to put the parties to unnecessary expense, the sheriff of Alexandria county was not required to bring the body of William B. Settle before the court, and the case was argued before us as upon a motion to quash the writ, which seems to be the accepted mode of determining its sufficiency rather than by demurrer.
The sole question to be determined is as to the constitutionality of the act authorizing the appointment of a trial justice of the county of Alexandria. It is insisted on behalf of the petitioner that the act is unconstitutional because it is special or class legislation prohibited by section 63 of the Constitution of this state (Code 1904, p. ccxxiii), in that, it applies only to the county of Alexandria; that it is repugnant to section 52 of the Constitution (page ccxxi), which provides, among other things, that "no law shall be revived or amended with reference to its title, but the act revived or the section amended shall be re-enacted and published at length"; and, third, that it is repugnant to section 87 of the Constitution (page ccxxxi), which provides that "the judiciary department shall consist of a Supreme Court of Appeals, circuit courts, city courts, and such other courts as are hereinafter authorized."
It is true that the act applies only to the county of Alexandria, that being the only county in the state which has a population of 300 or more to the square mile. But the fact that a law applies only to certain territorial districts does not render it unconstitutional, provided it applies to all districts and all persons who are similarly situated, and to all parts of the state where like conditions exist. Laws may be made to apply to a class only, and that class may be in point of fact a small one,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Norfolk Bus. Dist. v. HUD
...228 Va. at 583, 323 S.E.2d at 133 (citing Harrison v. Day, 200 Va. 750, 754, 107 S.E.2d 585, 587-88 (1959); Ex parte Settle, 114 Va. 715, 719, 77 S.E. 496, 497 (1913)). The mere fact that the bonds which are to be issued will finance a center leased to private entities does not make these a......
-
Fugate v. Weston
...power; and that every fair doubt must be resolved in favor of the constitutionality of an act of the General Assembly. Ex parte Settle, 114 Va. 715, 77 S.E. 496; Pine and Scott Commonwealth, 121 Va. 822, 93 S.E. This principle must have been in mind when, in Constitution, section 63, out of......
-
School Bd. of City of Norfolk v. U.S. Gypsum Co.
...it to be null and void. City of Charlottesville v. DeHaan, 228 Va. 578, 584, 323 S.E.2d 131, 133 (1984), quoting Ex parte Settle, 114 Va. 715, 719, 77 S.E. 496, 497 (1913). Thus, if two constructions of a statute are possible, we should avoid the construction which makes the statute unconst......
-
Etheridge v. Medical Center Hospitals
...203 Va. 161, 165, 123 S.E.2d 94, 97 (1961); Dean v. Paolicelli, 194 Va. 219, 227, 72 S.E.2d 506, 511 (1952); Ex Parte Settle, 114 Va. 715, 719, 77 S.E. 496, 497 (1913). Therefore, the party assailing the legislation has the burden of proving that it is unconstitutional, Riddleberger, 229 Va......