State v. Griffiths

• Decision Date: 25 January 1926
• Docket Number: 19705.
• Citation: 242 P. 969,137 Wash. 448
• Parties: STATE ex rel. BIDDINGER v. GRIFFITHS, Judge.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

242 P. 969

137 Wash. 448

STATE ex rel. BIDDINGER v. GRIFFITHS, Judge.

No. 19705.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 25, 1926

Department 2.

Original application for writ of mandamus by the State of Washington on the relation of Arthur C. Biddinger, against Hon. Austin E. Griffiths, Judge of the Superior Court of King County. Writ issued.

E. P Whiting, of Seattle, for relator.

Austin E. Griffiths and John F. Dore, both of Seattle, for respondent.

MAIN J.

This is an application for writ of mandamus directed to Hon. Austin E. Griffiths, one of the judges of the superior court of King county. The situation out of which the application arose is this: In an action entitled Biddinger v. Biddinger the superior court on June 13, 1924, entered an interlocutory decree of divorce. By the terms of the decree the plaintiff in that action was awarded $75 per month alimony and attorney's fees. The final decree was entered on March 3 1925. On September 29, 1925, an order to show cause was issued directed to the defendant, requiring him to appear and show cause why he should not be punished for contempt for failing to pay the alimony provided for in the decree. When the matter came on for hearing before the superior court, it was referred to Hon. Charles E. Claypool as court commissioner, for trial. The court commissioner heard the cause, found that $1,075 was due and unpaid as alimony, and directed that the defendant be committed to the county jail until he should pay the same. Thereafter and within the time provided for by statute the defendant filed a motion in the superior court for a review of the orders and rulings of the commissioner. When this motion came on for hearing, the trial court was willing to entertain jurisdiction to the extent of inquiring whether the process was regular and whether the findings of the commissioners supported the judgment and that the proceeding was regular and according to law upon its face. The trial court, however, as we understand it, was disinclined to take jurisdiction to the extent of reviewing the entire case as heard by the commissioner. By this application the relator, the defendant in the superior court, seeks to require the respondent to take full jurisdiction of the cause.

The question to be determined is the extent of the power and duty of the trial court to review a cause which has been heard before the commissioner.

Section 23 of article 4 of the Constitution provides:

'There may be appointed in each county, by the judge of the superior court having jurisdiction therein, one or more court commissioners, not exceeding three in number, who shall have authority to perform like duties as a judge of the superior court at chambers, subject to revision by said judge, to take depositions and to perform such other business connected with the administration of justice as may be prescribed by law.'

It will be observed that by this section of the Constitution the court commissioner has power to perform the same duties as a judge of the superior court at chambers, 'subject to revision by said judge' who had referred the case to him.

In State ex rel. Lockhart v. Claypool, 132 Wash. 374, 232 P. 351, the court passed upon the question of the extent of the power or authority of a court commissioner. In that case, however, the question of the review of a cause after it has been tried by a commissioner was not involved or determined. The question of the review is entirely distinct and separate from that of authority or extent of power.

Section 86, Rem. Comp. Stat., provides:

'All of the acts and proceedings of court commissioners hereunder shall be subject to

...