State ex rel. Lytle v. Douglas Co.

• Decision Date: 06 January 1886
• Citation: 26 N.W. 315,18 Neb. 506
• Parties: STATE EX REL. LYTLE v. DOUGLAS CO.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

18 Neb. 506

26 N.W. 315

STATE EX REL. LYTLE

v.DOUGLAS CO.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Filed January 6, 1886.

Mandamus.

P. O. Hawes, for relator.

No counsel for respondent.

MAXWELL, J.

This is an application for a mandamus to compel the county commissioners of Douglas county “forthwith to call an election for the city of Omaha, for the purpose of electing two justices of the peace” for each precinct in said city. The application was filed and submitted on the twenty-ninth of October, 1885, the day of election being the third of November thereafter. The relator alleges that he is an elector of the city of Omaha; that in October, 1869, the board of county commissioners of Douglas county divided said city of Omaha into six precincts, numbered respectively, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, which precincts thus established still exist; that under the statute of 1879 each of said precincts is entitled to elect two justices of the peace, making 12 in all for said city; that by an act approved March 5, 1885, it was provided that in cities of the first class, which includes Omaha, but three justices of the peace shall be elected in and for such city, and no more; that by virtue of said act the defendants “were required to divide said six precincts constituting the city of Omaha into three districts, for the purpose of and intending thereby to decrease the number of justices of the peace in said Omaha to the number of three, which said defendants, as their duty was, proceeded to do,” etc.; that so much of the statute above referred to as relates to justices of the peace is contrary to and in derogation of the constitution of the state, section 15 of article 10 of which provides that the legislature shall not pass local or special laws “regulating county and township officers, providing for the election of officers in townships, incorporated towns, and cities,” and “in all other cases where a general law can be made applicable, no special law shall be enacted;” also section 19, art. 6, which provides “that all laws relating to courts shall be general and of uniform operation, and the organization, etc., of such courts severally shall be uniform.”

It will be seen that the questions presented in this case are very important, involving as they do the validity of an act reducing the number of justices of the peace in Omaha. Such questions should not be decided without a full hearing of all parties interested, and a careful examination of the entire subject....