State v. Ryan

• Decision Date: 17 December 1910
• Citation: 232 Mo. 77,133 S.W. 8
• Parties: STATE ex rel. MAJOR, Atty. Gen., v. RYAN et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

133 S.W. 8

232 Mo. 77

STATE ex rel. MAJOR, Atty. Gen., v. RYAN et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

December 17, 1910.

1. JURY (§ 58) — STATUTES — APPLICABILITY.

A county removed from the provisions of Laws 1905, p. 174 (Ann. St. 1906, § 3804-17), as amended by Laws 1907, p. 322 (Rev. St. 1909, §§ 7318-7333), providing for a board of jury commissioners in a county containing a city of more than 100,000 and less than 400,000 inhabitants, because of a decline in the population of a city in the county to less than 100,000, as shown by the census of 1910, may exercise the common-law right to summon jurors as occasion may require, in obedience to Const. art. 2, § 28 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 162), or it may select its juries according to Rev. St. 1909, §§ 7305-7317, providing for the selection of juries in counties containing cities having a population of 50,000 and less than 300,000.

2. COUNTIES (§ 19) — CLASSIFICATION BY POPULATION — STATUTES.

Where a classification of counties by population is not obnoxious as special and local legislation, a county or county or officer going in under the law through an increase of population will be removed from its operation on a decrease of population, provided the statute, when reasonably construed, may receive such a construction.

3. STATUTES (§ 93) — LOCAL AND SPECIAL LAWS — CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS.

Since Const. art. 4, § 53 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 197), prohibiting the passage of any local or special law summoning juries, a statute prescribing the method of summoning juries in counties which contain or which may subsequently contain a city having according to the last preceding federal census more than 100,000 inhabitants, and less than 400,000, will not be so construed as to govern a county, which by reason of a decline in its population, has no city containing a population of 100,000, as this construction would make the statute invalid.

4. COUNTIES (§ 19) — CLASSIFICATION — CHANGE OF POPULATION — CITY RULE.

The rule that a city organized under one class will continue in that class, though its population declines, so that it has not the population required for that class, does not govern the construction of statutes relating to the affairs of counties based on population, since cities operate under charters which can be changed only by an act of sovereignty.

5. EVIDENCE (§ 12) — JUDICIAL NOTICE — POPULATION OF CITY OF COUNTY.

The court will take judicial notice of the population of a city or county, when once established by the federal census.

6. PLEADING (§ 214) — DEMURRER — ADMISSIONS.

A demurrer admits facts well pleaded.

7. STATUTES (§ 206) — CONSTRUCTION — MEANING OF WORDS.

The court in construing a statute must give effect to all the words thereof when possible.

8. STATUTES (§ 208) — CONSTRUCTION — LEGISLATIVE INTENT.

The court in construing a statute must consider the context thereof and sections in parimateria, as well as cognate sections, and seek to arrive at the true intendment of the statute.

9. STATUTES (§ 93) — CLASSIFICATION BY POPULATION.

Statutory classifications by population for the summoning of jurors are not unconstitutional.

10. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (§ 48) — CONSTRUCTION — VALIDITY OF STATUTES.

Where one construction will render a statute unconstitutional, and another construction, which is reasonable, will render it valid, the latter must be adopted.

11. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (§ 48) — CONSTRUCTION — VALIDITY OF STATUTES.

A statute prescribing the manner for the selection of jurors in each county containing, or which may contain, a city having, according to the last preceding federal census, a designated population, if so construed as to govern a county ceasing to have a city of the required population as shown by the census of 1910, showing a decline in population, is unconstitutional, but if construed to exclude such a county, is valid, and where the latter construction is reasonable, it must be adopted.

12. JURY (§ 58) — SUMMONING JURORS — STATUTES — CONSTRUCTION.

Laws 1905, p. 174 (Ann. St. 1906, § 3804-17), as amended by Laws 1907, p. 322 (Rev. St. 1909, §§ 7318-7333), prescribing the manner of selecting jurors in each county containing or which may contain a city having, according to the last preceding federal census more than 100,000 and less then 400,000, opens automatically to counties which in the future will contain a city of the required population, and excludes from its operation any county which, because of a decline in population, ceases to have a city of the required population.

In Banc. Quo Warranto by the State, on the relation of Elliott W. Major, Attorney General, against Thomas F. Ryan and others, to try the title of respondents to the office of, and to oust them as, a Board of Jury Commissioners of Buchanan County. Writ awarded.

E. W. Major, Thos. B. Allen, Chas. H. Mayer, and Culver, Phillip & Spencer, for relator. C. C. Crow, K. B. Randolph, J. W. Boyd, and Brown & Dolman, for respondents.

LAMM, J.

Respondents are severally judges of the criminal court of Buchanan county and of Divisions 1 and 2 of the Buchanan circuit court. The Attorney General exhibits here an information, ex officio, in the nature of quo warranto to try the title of respondents to the office of, and to oust them as, a board of jury commissioners of Buchanan county.

The information pleads by title and sections two acts of the General Assembly, one found in the Laws of 1905, p. 174 (Ann. St. 1906, § 3804-17), entitled, "Jurors. Board of Commissioners in counties containing city of 150,000 and less than 400,000 inhabitants"; the other, in the Laws of 1907, p. 322, amendatory of the first.

The information shows that, as amended in 1907, section 1 of the first act now reads: "In each county of this state now containing or which may contain hereafter a city having, according to the last preceding national census, more than one hundred thousand inhabitants and less than four hundred thousand inhabitants, petit jurors for the circuit court and for the court having jurisdiction of felony cases shall be selected as hereinafter provided."

Section 2 of the original act, not amended, in part reads: "The circuit judges of said counties, and the judge of the court having jurisdiction in felony cases, shall be and constitute a board of jury commissioners for such counties, a majority of whom shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. * * * Each member of said board shall, as compensation for his services under this act, as jury commissioner solely, receive a salary of fifteen hundred dollars per annum. Said salaries shall be paid by the county monthly in equal monthly installments. The time, place and manner of meetings of said board and the rules for performing its duties shall be fixed by said board."

As amended in 1907 section 3 of the original act now reads: "In every county in this state to which this act may apply, the board of jury commissioners of said county, at its first regular meeting, after it is ascertained from the last preceding national census that said county contains a city of more than one hundred thousand inhabitants, and less than four hundred thousand inhabitants, shall cause to be made, under its supervision, a complete list, as near as they can, alphabetically arranged, of all the qualified jurors in the county and their residences; and in compiling said list said board of jury commissioners, and their clerks and assistants, may have access to the books of the county assessor and to any registration of voters required by law to be made."

The amendatory act had an emergency clause based on the "necessity of the immediate revision of the jury laws in counties affected by its provisions," and was approved February 26, 1907. The original act had the same emergency clause and was approved February 21, 1905. The other provisions of the original act, not amended, consist of 14 sections, working out the details of the plan — all immaterial here. The original act ran in favor of every county of the state "now containing or which may contain hereafter" a city having, according to the last preceding national census, more than 150,000 and less than 400,000 inhabitants. At the outset, the act took effect in only one county — that of Jackson — Kansas City being the only town then fitting the statutory requirement in population. The amendatory act of 1907, by reducing the requirement in population to 100,000 includes Buchanan county; the city of St. Joseph, contained therein, according to the then last national census having the required number.

Further outlining the information, its theory is that according to the national census of 1910, as officially promulgated, the city of St. Joseph does not contain 100,000 inhabitants, nor does the county of Buchanan have as many; that by virtue of the act of 1905, as amended in 1907, respondents at once assumed the office of jury commissioners in Buchanan county, constituting its board of jury commissioners, put on foot its jury scheme, and took to themselves its duties, honors, and solatium; that by virtue of the official promulgation of the national census of 1910, establishing the fact that the population of St. Joseph was less than 100,000, the law ceased to be operative in Buchanan county; and that such board of jury commissioners became functus officio, and no longer had any right to legal existence. It is charged that, despite that fact, respondents continued to perform and are performing such duties and usurping the office of jury commissioners, "in contempt and to great prejudice and damage of the authority of the state of Missouri." Process was prayed against them that they be cited to make answer to the state, and show by what authority they claimed to use and enjoy the rights, liberties, privileges, and franchise aforesaid.

The suit is a friendly one to set at rest a vexed question relating to selecting jurors for service in the courts of Buchanan county. Respondents...