§ 5. Colorado-Vesting of Judicial Power. The judicial power of the state of Colorado as to matters of law and equity is vested in a supreme court, district courts, justices of the peace, and such other courts as may be provided by law.1 1 (Colo.) Const., art. 6, sec. 1. § 6. Oregon-Judicial Power of State-In Whom Vested. The judicial power of the state of Oregon is vested in a supreme court, circuit courts, and county courts, which are courts of record, having general jurisdiction, to be defined, limited, and regulated by law, in accordance with the constitution. Justices of the peace may also be invested with limited judicial powers, and municipal courts may be created to administer the regulation of incorporated towns and cities.1 1 (Or.) Const., art. 7, sec. 1. § 7. Oregon Justice's Court Defined-Where and by Whom Holden. A justice's court is a court held by a justice of the peace, within the precinct for which he may be chosen. There are no particular terms of such court, but the same is always open for the transaction of business, according to the mode of proceeding prescribed for it.1 1 Lord's Or. Laws, sec. 949. § 8. Montana-Judicial Power-Where Vested. The judicial power of the state shall be vested in the senate sitting as a court of impeachment, in a supreme court, district courts, justices of the peace, and such other inferior courts as the legislative assembly may establish in any incorporated city or town.1 1 (Mont.) Const., art. 8, sec. 1; In re Kane's Estate, 12 Mont. 203, 29 Pac. 425; State v. Judges, 30 Mont. 199, 76 Pac. 13; State v. Justice Court, 31 Mont. 261, 78 Pac. 490. § 9. Legislature to Fix Number and Jurisdiction of Inferior Courts. The legislature must determine the number of each of the inferior courts in incorporated cities or towns, and in townships, counties, or cities and counties, according to the population thereof and the number of judges or justices thereof, and must fix by law the powers, duties and responsibilities of each of such courts and of the judges or justices thereof; provided, such powers shall not in any case, trench upon the jurisdiction of the several courts of record, except that the legislature may provide. that said courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the superior courts in cases of forcible entry and detainer, where the rental value does not exceed twenty-five dollars per month, and where the whole amount of damages claimed does not exceed two hundred dollars, and in cases to enforce and foreclose liens on personal property when neither the amount of liens nor the value of the property amounts to three hundred dollars.1 1 (Cal.) Const. 1879, art. 6, sec. 11, Amdt. approved October 10, 1911. The legislature shall fix by law the jurisdiction of any inferior courts which may be established in pur suance of section 1 of this article, and shall fix by law the powers, duties and responsibilities of the judges thereof: (Cal.) Const. 1879, art. 6, sec. 13. § 10. The Provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure Concerning Justice's Courts in Cities and Counties are not Special Legislation. Chapter 5, article 1, of title 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as to number of justices' courts in cities and counties, is not special legislation, and section 91 of that code contains a modification of the rule declared in section 844 regarding the proper party to sign a summons in the justice's court of the city and county of San Francisco.1 1 Helms v. Dunne, 107 Cal. 117, 40 Pac. 100. § 11. Washington-Justices' Courts may not be Courts of Record. The legislature shall have power to provide that any of the courts of the state, excepting justices of the peace, shall be courts of record.1 1 (Wash.) Const., art. 4, sec. 11. § 12. Washington-Justices of the Peace-Number and Juris diction. The legislature shall determine the number of justices of the peace to be elected in incorporated cities or towns and in precincts, and shall prescribe by law the powers, duties and jurisdiction of the justices of the peace: Provided, that such jurisdiction granted by the legislature shall not trench upon the jurisdiction of superior or other courts of record, except that justices of the peace may be made police justices of incorporated cities and towns. In incorporated cities or towns having more than five thousand inhabitants, the justices of the peace shall receive such salary as may be provided by law, and shall receive no fees for their own use.1 1 (Wash.) Const., art. 4, sec. 10. $13. Colorado-Police Magistrates-How Created Jurisdiction. The general assembly has power to provide for creating such police magistrates for cities and towns as may be deemed from. time to time necessary or expedient, who shall have jurisdiction of all cases arising under the ordinances of such cities and towns respectively.1 1 (Colo.) Const., sec. 26. § 14. Montana Police and Municipal Courts Constitutional Provisions. The legislative assembly shall have power to provide for creating such police and municipal courts and magistrates for cities and towns as may be deemed necessary from time to time, who shall have jurisdiction in all cases arising under the ordinances of such cities and towns, respectively; such police magistrates may also be constituted ex-officio justices of the peace for their respective counties.1 1 (Mont.) Const., art. 8, sec. 24. § 15. Justices of the Peace Formerly State Officials. Justices of the peace were formerly part of the judicial system of the state and not city or county officials.1 1 People v. Cobb, 133 Cal. 74; Kahn v. Sutro, 114 Cal. 316, 46 Pac. 87. § 16. Justices of the Peace No Longer State Officers in California. Formerly, the office of justice of the peace was a constitutional office, and the legislature had no power to substitute any other court for the justice's court, no matter how much less expensive or more efficient such other court might be. This was changed in 1911 by constitutional amendment making the office of justice of the peace statutory only, so that the legislature may, hereafter, if desirable, create other courts to take the place of the justice's court. For many years, and in all parts of the state, the system of inferior courts has been criticised on the ground of its inefficiency and its expensiveness. In a great majority of townships there is no lawyer who is willing to accept the office of justice of the peace, and the great majority of justices are, therefore, men without education in the law. The result of this is that civil cases tried in these courts are appealed to the superior court and the litigants, instead of saving money by having a local inferior court, are put to the expense of a double trial. If the judges of the inferior courts were trained in the law, there would be fewer appeals and litigants would save 1 The above is from the statement sent to the voters at the time of the adoption of the amendment referred to. The statement continues as follows: "Our present system is expensive to the taxpayer also. For example, in Santa Clara county justices of the peace are paid in salary each year $16,860, besides being allowed to retain certain fees for their own use, while the judges of the superior court, for doing many times more both time and money.1 work, receive $15,000 and no fees. In other counties a like condition exists. It is generally conceded that a more efficient and less expensive inferior court can be devised. A circuit court, for instance, sitting at regular intervals in the different townships of a county, could dispose of all the civil and criminal cases that are now within the jurisdiction of the justice's court, and by this means one justice could do the work which now requires several. It would be easy to find competent justices for such positions and each community would still have the advantage of a local court, but that court would be efficient and comparatively inexpensive. The purpose of the amendment was to pave the way for such a change. By the adoption of this amendment the people of the state placed in the legislature power to establish an inferior court that will save money both to the taxpayer and to the litigant, and give greater satisfaction to all parties. "A further effect of this amendment will be the abolition of the fee system in our courts. At present, justices of the peace are permitted to retain fees for their own use. Such a system has a natural tendency to prejudice a weak justice toward the plaintiff who must, in the first instance, pay the fees. The fee system has been gradually abolished in this state, and very few public officials are now allowed to retain fees for their own use. Judges, in particular, should not be allowed to retain fees. The amendment will not, however, affect the fees of justices of the peace now in office during the term for which they have been elected. "The only argument advanced against the amendment in the legislature was that in some counties the present system is working satisfactorily and the people in those counties desire no change. To meet this objection, the judiciary committee of the Senate caused the resolution to be amended so that the present court may be retained in such counties and some other court substituted in the counties where the present system is not satisfactory. "The laws of California, at present, provide for the office of justice of the peace, so that the adoption of this amendment will legislate no man out of office. Until the legislature changes the law, the present court will continue with the same powers and duties it now has. The adoption of this amendment simply gives to the legislature the power to make such changes in the law and to provide for a more efficient court." (L. D. Bohnett and Henry N. Beatty, Assemblymen.) § 17. Local and Special Laws as to Inferior Courts Prohibited. The legislature must not pass local or special laws regulating the jurisdiction and duties of justices of the peace, police judges, and of constables.1 1 (Cal.) Const. 1879, art. 4, sec. 25, subd. 1; (Or.) Const., art. 4, sec. 23. The act establishing an additional police court in San Francisco, with the same jurisdiction, and to be governed by the same rules as the court already existing, is not a special law: Ex parte Jordan, 62 Cal. 464. This does not apply to the terms of office of justices of the peace: Kahn v. Sutro, 114 Cal. 316, 46 Pac. 87, 33 L. R. A. 620. The act creating a justice's court for one particular named town and fixing its jurisdiction is a special law: Minor v. Justice's Court, 121 Cal. 264, 53 Pac. 795. The act creating a police court for cities of one class is constitutional: Union etc. Co. v. Rose, 11 Cal. App. 357, 104 Pac. 1006. |