State v. Bd. of Aldermen of City of Newport
| Decision Date | 12 October 1893 |
| Parties | STATE v. BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF CITY OF NEWPORT. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Petition by the state for certiorari to review the action of the board of aldermen of the city of Newport in making and adopting a list of inhabitants for jury service. Denied.
The petition which was preferred by the attorney general alleges that the board of aldermen of the city of Newport, on the 1st of August, 1893, in the pretended discharge of the duty imposed upon them by the judiciary act, (chapter 7, § 7,) adopted, as a list of persons inhabiting said city who were qualified to serve as jurors, a list of persons which was not in fact a list of persons whom said board thought well qualified to serve as jurors, and who, in the judgment of said board, were persons having the qualifications required by said act, but was in fact a list of persons prepared by two members of the board, as a committee appointed for that purpose; that the committee, in making up said list, adopted a list of persons qualified to serve as jurors under statutes in force prior to the passage of the judiciary act, made up and adopted by the board when such statutes were in force, but striking out the names of certain persons who had become disqualified by the change in the law, and such others as said committee saw fit to omit; that said lists were not at any time or place read to the board, nor examined by it or the members thereof, (other than the committee,) and that said board did not, either as a board or as individuals, (except said committee,) at any time or place exercise its or their judgment upon said jury lists. The petition prayed for a citation to the board of aldermen, and the members thereof, to show cause why a writ of certiorari should not issue.
Samuel R. Honey, for the State.
The petitioner has not satisfied us that a case is made in the petition, sufficient to entitle him to a citation. Certiorari lies to review the proceedings of an inferior court, or of boards, commissioners, or officers acting in a judicial character. It operates directly on the record, and hence parol evidence is inadmissible except in relation to facts on which the exercise of jurisdiction by the inferior court, board, or officer depends. Dexter v. Town Council, 17 R. I. 222, 21 Atl. 347; Lonsdale Co. v. Board of License Com'rs, 18 R. I. —, 25 Atl. 655. In the present instance it is conceded that the board of aldermen of Newport had jurisdiction, under chapter 7, § 7, of the judiciary act, to make a list of all such persons inhabiting the city of Newport as they should think well qualified to serve as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pine Bluff Water & Light Co. v. City of Pine Bluff
...id. 9; 1 Beach, Pub. Corp. sec. 537; Throop, Pub. Off. secs. 533, 800, 802; 68 N.Y. 403, 409; 43 Barb. 232; 142 N.Y. 228; 25 N.E. 995, 997; 28 A. 347; 54 Wis. 150; 18 438; 61 Wis. 494; 37 N.E. 240. 2. The legislative and ministerial acts of a city council are not, and the judicial acts are,......
-
Kelsey v. District Cout of Platte County
... ... Odell, ... 1 Pin. (Wis.) 449; Mahan v. Lester, 20 Ala ... 162; State v. Jersey City, 42 N. J. L. 232). Though ... the writ be abolished by ... Beyerly v. Hunger, 1 Woodw. (Pa.) 354; State v ... Newport, 18 R. I. 381; Castner v. Fanning, 3 ... Kulp, 17; Leis v. Yost, 1 Woodw ... ...
-
Payne & Butler v. Providence Gas Co.
...of the particular case add some element of probability. A similar principle was laid down in the case of State v. Board of Aldermen, 18 R. I. 381, 382, 28 Atl. 347, with regard to official acts, when the court said: "The rule is well established that, if an inferior court has jurisdiction, ......
-
State v. Coleman
...Certiorari lies to determine whether the facts necessary to give an inferior tribunal jurisdiction were present. State v. Board of Aldermen, 18 R.I. 381, 382, 28 A. 347;. McAloon v. License Commissioners, 22 R.I. 191, 46 A. 1047, supra; Coggeshall v. Harbor Commission, 50 R. I. 175, 146 A. ......