(Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. Dec. time for giving of said bond has not yet

elapsed. It is further stipulated that the attorney for the petitioner in error may have 10 days from this date in which to file brief Habeas corpus does not lie to correct mere in support of his application, and that the irregularity of procedure, where there is jurisdic-state shall have 10 days additional to file antion. There must be illegality or irregularity sufficient to render the proceedings void.

Application of Ralph Brown for writ of Reece, county attorney, substantially charghabeas corpus. Writ denied.

*For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Reporter Indexes

cause be assigned for trial at Cushing, Payne | considered by said county court at the said county, Okl., on the 1st day of November, town of Cushing, and in all things over1909, and to all and each said defendant duly ruled when so sitting, to which action of objected and excepted. That on Monday, No- the court the defendant at the time duly exvember 1, 1909, the county court of Payne cepted. county convened and opened in regular term at town of Cushing, Payne county, Okl., with Hon. P. D. Mitchell, county judge, present as presiding judge; and there were also present Lulu M. Regnier, county court stenographer and ex officio clerk of county court, Al Goldsby, deputy sheriff, J. W. Reece, county attorney, and also other attorneys.

the town of Cushing. Section 2 of said act | trict courts, county courts, courts of jus-
reads as follows: "Sec. 2. The jurisdic-
tion of said court shall be the same in all
respects as if exercised at the county seat.
Any person instituting proceedings in said
court may file, at the time, an affidavit,
showing that the convenience of the parties
in interest requires the hearing to be had at
said town, and it shall be so ordered; pro-
vided, that such parties may subsequently
agree to transfer such hearing to the county
seat." The petitioner at every stage of the
proceedings objected to being tried at Cush-
ing. Counsel for petitioner contends that
the trial, conviction, and sentence in the
county court of Payne county convened at
Cushing was illegal, null, and void for want
of jurisdiction, and argues ingeniously that
the affidavit provided for in said section 2
is a necessary prerequisite to obtaining ju-
risdiction to try the cause at the town of
Cushing. He places particular stress upon
the clause fixing the time the affidavit should
be filed. That portion of said section reads
as follows: "Any person instituting proceed-
ings in said court may file, at the time, an
affidavit, showing that the convenience of
the parties in interest requires the hearing
to be had at said town, and it shall be so
ordered." Counsel in his brief says: "The
phrase 'at the time' can refer to no time
other than the time when the proceedings
are instituted, and in this case they were
instituted when the information was filed on
September 30, 1909. They certainly had
been 'instituted' long before October 4, 1909,
when defendant was arraigned and entered
his plea of not guilty to the charge, and
long before October 15, 1909, when the de-
fendant's written demand for a trial at Still-
water was overruled by the county court and
when the county attorney filed the affidavit
for a transfer of the cause to the town of
Cushing. As we view it, the law simply
means that the county court at Stillwater
never has jurisdiction to try a cause except
by retransfer under the agreement of the
parties if the affidavit for transfer has been
filed at the time the proceedings are insti-
tuted, and, on the other hand, if the affidavit
is not filed at the time' the proceedings are
instituted, the court at Stillwater has full
and complete jurisdiction of the case, from
which it cannot be ousted by an affidavit
subsequently filed, after arraignment and
plea and written demand for trial by the
court at Stillwater." We cannot believe
that this contention is well founded. As we
view this provision, it furnishes merely a
rule of practice applicable in a certain class
of cases. The jurisdiction of the county
court of Payne county is the same in all
respects, whether the sessions are held at
the county seat or at Cushing.

tices of the peace, municipal courts, and such
other courts, commissions or boards, inferior
to the Supreme Court, as may be established
by law." In section 11 of said article 7 it
is provided: "There is hereby established in
each county of this state a county court,
which shall be a court of record." In sec-
tion 12 of said article 7 it is provided:
"County courts shall have jurisdiction con-
current with justices of the peace in misde-
meanor cases, and exclusive jurisdiction in
all misdemeanor cases of which justices of
the peace have not jurisdiction." In section.
13 of said article 7 it is provided: "The
county court shall be held at the county
seat, but the Legislature may provide for
holding sessions of the county court at not
more than two additional places in the coun-.
ty." Section 2007, Snyder's St., provides:
"In the several counties of this state com-
mencing on the first Mondays of January,
April, July and October of each year, except
as otherwise herein provided, county court
shall convene at the county seat and con-
tinue in session so long as the business may
require: provided, that said court shall al-
ways be open for the transaction of all pro-
bate business in their respective counties."
Section 2009, Snyder's St., further provides:
"If there is only one place other than the
county seat at which it is provided by law
for holding terms of the county court, the
terms of said court at such place shall com-
mence on the first Mondays of February,
May, August and November of each year,
and continue in session for the period of 3
weeks, if the public business requires it."

It appears from the agreed statement that the October term of the county court of Payne county convened at Cushing on Monday, November 1st, as prescribed by section 2009, Snyder's St., above quoted, and, in the exercise of its exclusive jurisdiction to try this class of misdemeanors, the petitioner was there tried, convicted, and sentenced for a violation of the prohibition law. Where the power of a court in a particular matter is derived directly from the Constitution, it is not a special jurisdiction, and jurisdiction will be presumed unless the contrary appears of record. Ex parte Earl Howard, 2 Okl. Cr. —, 103 Pac. 663. Section 5137, Snyder's St., provides: "The proceedings of this court are construed in the same manner, and with like intendments, as the proceedings of courts of general jurisdiction, and to its records, orders, judgments and decrees, there are accorded like force, effect and legal presumption as to the records, orders, judgments and decrees of district courts." We are of opinion that the manner and method of assigning criminal cases for trial by the county court of Payne county, at the county seat or Section 1, art. 7, of the Constitution, pro- at the town of Cushing, is not jurisdictional, vides: "The judicial power of this state and therefore does not present a question shall be vested in the Senate, sitting as a that will be reviewed in a habeas corpus

Dig. § 515; Dec. Dig. § 212.*]

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Courts, Cent.

it is provided that: "No court or judge shall | but the right of appeal cannot be given from inquire into the legality of any judgment or any other tribunal. process, whereby the party is in custody, or discharge him when the term of commitment has not expired in either of the cases following: * (2) Upon any process issued on any final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction."

**

3. COURTS (§ 212*)-APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF SUPERIOR COURTS-POWER OF LEGISLATURE TO CONFER-INFERIOR COURTS."

The board of supervisors of a county, though exercising judicial functions, is not an ing that the superior court shall have appellate inferior court within Const. art. 6, § 5, providjurisdiction in cases arising in. justices' and other inferior courts, as the term "inferior courts" are courts established for the administration of justice, charged with the exercise of judicial power as a substantive duty, but with limited jurisdiction usually confined to the lim

created, and police, municipal, and recorders' courts are examples of inferior courts within the Constitution.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. § 515; Dec. Dig. § 212.*

For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 4, pp. 3580-3582.]

Upon principles which may be considered well settled by a series of decisions of this court, the writ of habeas corpus does not lie to correct mere irregularity of procedure, where there is jurisdiction. There must be illegality or irregularity sufficient to render the proceedings void for want of jurisdic-its of the city or town for which they are mainly tion. Ex parte Charles Johnson, 1 Okl. Cr. 414, 98 Pac. 461; In re Geo. McNaught, 1 Okl. Cr. 528, 99 Pac. 241; Ex parte Flowers, 2 Okl. Cr., 101 Pac. 860; Ex parte Earl Howard, supra; Ex parte Mingle, 3 Okl. Cr. 104 Pac. 68; Ex parte Justus, 3 Okl. Cr. -, 104 Pac. 933. The statutes contain 37 acts creating county court towns. It is to be regretted that many of these acts were drawn carelessly and with a total disregard of legal certainty, and there seems to have been no effort to secure uniformity in their various provisions. These various acts were necessarily fruitful of legal questions. To relieve this condition the general law was passed, to wit, article 9, c. 14, p. 191, Sess. Laws 1909, providing for uniformity in the sessions of county courts in the several counties in the state, and repealing all laws in conflict therewith. This act became effective

June 11, 1909. The constitutionality of this law is unquestionable.

Viewing the law as we do, the application for writ of habeas corpus for the release of the petitioner will be denied.

FURMAN, P. J., and OWEN, J., concur.

4. COURTS (§ 212*)—APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF SUPERIOR COURT-POWER OF LEGISLATURE TO CONFER-INFERIOR COURTS.

Irrigation Act (St. 1897, p. 254, c. 189) § 4, authorizing an appeal to the superior court from an order of the board of supervisors of an irrigation district, is in conflict with Const. the county, in proceedings for the formation of art. 6, § 5, providing that the superior court shall have appellate jurisdiction in cases arising in justices' and other inferior courts, as the act attempts to authorize an appeal from an order of the board of supervisors which is not an inferior court.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. § 515; Dec. Dig. § 212.*]

mandate by Walter Chinn and others against In Bank. Original petition for a writ of the Superior Court of San Joaquin County to compel the court to proceed with the hearing and determination of an appeal.

Writ denied.

Benj. F. Wulff, for petitioners. L. L. Dennett, for defendant.

LORIGAN, J. It appears from the petition for the writ that P. E. Lindstrom and CHINN et al. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF others made application to the board of suSAN JOAQUIN COUNTY. (S. F. 5,298.) pervisors of San Joaquin county for the formation of an irrigation district in said coun(Supreme Court of California. Nov. 19, 1909.) ty to be known as "the South San Joaquin 1. COURTS (§ 1*)-SOURCE OF JUDICIAL POWER Irrigation District." The application was -LEGISLATIVE INTERFERENCE. made under the provisions of the act of Where the jurisdiction of courts, original or 1897 (St. 1897, p. 254, c. 189, Gen. Laws 1906, appellate, is fixed by the Constitution, the Leg-p. 501), and such proceedings were had in islature cannot limit or extend it. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. 2; Dec. Dig. § 1.*]

2. COURTS (§ 212*)—APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF SUPERIOR COURT-POWER OF LEGISLATURE TO CONFER.

Const. art. 6, §§ 1, 5, providing that the judicial power shall be vested in enumerated courts, including superior courts, and that the superior court shall have appellate jurisdiction "in such cases arising in justices' and other inferior courts *** as may be prescribed by law," confers on the Legislature power to provide the method and extent to which an appeal from justices' and inferior courts may be taken,

the matter that on March 22, 1909, an order granting the application for the formation of the district was made by the board, and the objections of the petitioners for this writ against the inclusion of their lands within said district were overruled. Section 4 of the irrigation act provides for an appeal directly to the superior court of the county from such order of the board of supervisors, said appeal to be taken and heard in the same manner as appeals from the justice's court to the superior court, with power con

court-and the right of appeal cannot be given from any other tribunal.

ferred on the superior court to enter a judg-| from a court-either a justice or inferior ment affirming, modifying, or reversing the order of the board of supervisors appealed from. The present petitioners, being dissatis- The contention of the petitioners here fied with the order made by the board of su- necessarily is that, because the board of supervisors in the matter of the formation of pervisors in the exercise of powers confersaid irrigation district, perfected an appeal red upon it may sometimes act judicially, to the superior court of San Joaquin county, therefore it constitutes a court-an inferior in conformity to said section 4 of the act, court-from whose judicial action the Legisand, the matter coming up for hearing before lature may provide an appeal under the consaid court, the appeal was dismissed, the su- stitutional provision pertaining to the apperior court holding that it had no jurisdic- pellate jurisdiction of the superior court. tion to entertain it for the reason that the Undoubtedly a board of supervisors may provision of the act attempting to confer ap- perform functions which are judicial in pellate jurisdiction on the superior court, to their character, as it may perform, and entertain an appeal from the order of the mainly does, those that are executive and board of supervisors, was unconstitutional ministerial. It exercises, in fact, in a minor and void. The petitioners thereupon applied degree, the powers of the general governto this court for a writ of mandate to compel ment-executive, judicial, and ministerial. the respondent-the superior court of San As said in People v. Provines, 34 Cal. 521, Joaquin county-to proceed with a hearing 528: "The word 'supervisors' when applied and determination of said appeal. An alterna- to county officers has a legal signification. tive writ was issued, to which a demurrer The duties of the officers are various and was interposed, and the matter is submitted manifold-sometimes judicial and at others for decision on that demurrer.

legislative and executive. From the necesIt is provided by the Constitution (article sity of the case it would be impossible to 6, § 1) that the judicial power of the state reconcile it to any particular head; and shall be vested in the Senate, in the Su- therefore in matters relating to police and preme Court, District Courts of Appeal, su- fiscal regulations of counties they are alperior courts, justices of the peace, and "such lowed to perform such duties as may be eninferior courts as the Legislature may estab- joined upon them by law, without any nice lish in any incorporated city or town, or examination into the exact character of the city and county." Section 5 of the same powers conferred. But, because a board of article, after declaring in what cases the supervisors may exercise judicial functions, superior court shall have original jurisdic- it is by no means an inferior court within tion, provides that they "shall have appel- the meaning of that term as employed in the late jurisdiction in such cases arising in jus- Constitution relative to the appellate juristices' and other inferior courts in their re- diction of the superior courts. The term spective counties as may be prescribed by "inferior courts" has a well-recognized meanlaw." It is a well-recognized principle that ing. They are courts established for the adwhere the judicial power of courts, either ministration of justice, charged with the original or appellate, is fixed by constitu- exercise of judicial power as a substantive tional provisions, the Legislature cannot ei- duty, but with limited jurisdiction in that ther limit or extend that jurisdiction. While regard, and that jurisdiction usually confinit is true that under the constitutional pro- ed to the limits of the city or town for visions conferring appellate jurisdiction up- which they are mainly created. Police courts, on the superior courts the matters to which municipal courts, and recorders' courts are, that jurisdiction on appeal shall pertain-to for example, inferior courts. But they are what extent and in what manner the pro- courts-inferior courts-as that term is emceedings or action of justices' or inferior ployed in the constitutional provision bearcourts may be reviewed-is not provided for, ing on the appellate jurisdiction of the subut is left solely to the determination of the perior court, and are the character of courts Legislature, still an express limitation is im- to which that appellate jurisdiction applies. posed as to the character of tribunals whose Courts are tribunals which exercise funcproceedings may be reviewed in the exer- tions of a strictly judicial character, and it cise of its appellate jurisdiction, and it can is only inferior courts, as such, that the be exercised in case of appeals from "jus- constitutional provisions respecting appeals tices'" or "inferior courts" only. All the to All the to the superior court has reference to. authority that is given to the Legislature, Boards of supervisors, common councils, and under the constitutional provision last referred to, is to provide the method and extent to which an appeal from these courts may be taken. It has no power to enlarge the tribunals from which it may be taken, because the constitutional provision has expressly declared of what those shall consist. The appeal to the superior court, when pro

other local boards, while they may be invested with mixed powers, including, among others, the power to act judicially in a matter before them, are not courts. At best, they are, in the exercise of that power, proceeding as quasi judicial bodies, something quite distinct from courts, and in no manner do they constitute inferior courts, as