Gilowsky v. Connolly
| Decision Date | 10 October 1882 |
| Citation | 55 Wis. 445,13 N.W. 444 |
| Parties | GILOWSKY v. CONNOLLY. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Milwaukee county.
C. K. Martin, for appellant.
Henry L. Buxton, for respondent.
The learned counsel for the defendant well states the question in this case to be thus: Did the defendant, as a justice of the peace in the city of Milwaukee, have jurisdiction to hear, try, and determine a charge for assault and battery which was committed within the county of Milwaukee? If not, the demurrer to the complaint, it is admitted, was properly overruled. Section 2499, Rev. St., continues the municipal court of Milwaukee county--as it had before been established--as a court of record; vests in it the powers and jurisdiction concurrent and equal with the circuit court of the county, in all cases of crimes and misdemeanors arising in the county, with exclusive appellate jurisdiction in all criminal cases tried before justices of the peace elected in the towns of the county. It is further provided that “no justice of the peace or court commissioner within said city shall exercise any jurisdiction in any criminal cases, but all such jurisdiction is vested in said court and the judge thereof.” The question involved is the validity of this clause of the statute quoted. The defendant's counsel insists that it is unconstitutional, and he has enforced his views in an able and elaborate argument. While we readily admit that the question is not free from difficulty, still for reasons--some of which will be given--we are constrained to hold against his views.
The argument founded on the constitution and statutes is briefly this: By the seventh article of the constitution judical power is vested in certain courts, among which are justices of the peace. In the fifteenth section of that article it is provided that the electors of the several towns, at their annual town meeting, and the electors of cities and villages, at their charter elections, shall, in such manner as the legislature shall direct, elect justices of the peace. “The justices thus elected shall have such civil and criminal jurisdiction as shall be prescribed by law.” Now, by the general statute, justices of the peace have power and jurisdiction throughout their respective counties to hear, try, and determine the offense of assault and battery. Sections 4739, 4388. From these constitutional and statutory provisions counsel argues that it is not competent for the legislature to confer upon one court a judical power which the constitution vests in another court, unless the authority to do so is conferred by the constitution itself; and, conversely, that the legislature cannot deprive any court of its right to exercise a judical power which the constitution vests in it.
The soundness of this general reasoning may be conceded. At the same time it will be observed that the constitution declares that justices shall have such civil and criminal jurisdiction as shall be prescribed by law. The constitution does not attempt to define the extent of the jurisdiction which shall be exercised by justices of the peace. It is not claimed that the jurisdiction of the justices of the peace, when once fixed, is unchangeable, and that the laws which have enlarged their powers from time to time were violations of the constitution. No such position could be successfully maintained, because the legislature manifestly is vested with some discretion as to the extentof jurisdiction which they shall exercise. But it is said that it is the obvious intention of the constitution that justices of the peace should exercise both civil and criminal jurisdiction to some extent, and that it is the scheme or policy of that instrument that their jurisdictional authority should be equal and uniform throughout the state. It would be difficult to establish the position that the constitution, either expressly or by direct implication, requires that justices of the peace in every town and city in the state should exercise the same measure of jurisdiction. That is really...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Olson v. Hawkins
...would have power to abolish the office or the court of justice of the peace. State v. Goldstucker, 40 Wis. 124;Gilowsky v. Connolly, Jr., 55 Wis. 445, 13 N. W. 444. The section of the general charter law under consideration plainly contemplates the continued existence of the office of justi......
-
State ex rel. Smyth, Attorney General v. Magney
...case relied upon is not in point. Similar to the decision just referred to is In re Greer, 58 Kan. 268, 48 P. 950. In Gilowsky v. Connolly, 55 Wis. 445, 13 N.W. 444, was decided that under the constitution of Wisconsin the legislature could take away from justices of the peace in cities and......
-
State ex rel. Smythe v. Magney
...case relied upon is not in point. Similar to the decision just referred to, is In re Greer (Kan. Sup.) 48 Pac. 950. In Gilowsky v. Connolly, 55 Wis. 445, 13 N. W. 444, it was decided that under the constitution of Wisconsin the legislature could take away from justices of the peace in citie......
-
People v. Pond
...v. Hurst, 41 Mich. 334, 1 N.W. 1027; People v. Sligh, 48 Mich. 55, 11 N.W. 782; People v. Phalen, 49 Mich. 492, 13 N.W. 830; Gilowsky v. Connolly, 13 N.W. 444. J. At a recent session of the legislature an act was passed entitled "An act to revise 'An act to incorporate the city of Bay City,......