State ex rel. Griffith v. Vineyard
State ex rel. Griffith v. Vineyard
Opinion of the Court
This is an appeal from a judgment adjudging that the respondent lawfully holds, and is entitled to hold, the office of justice of the peace of North Grangeville precinct, Idaho county.
The pleadings put in issue the right of respondent to hold said office. The case was tried on stipulated facts and judgment entered in favor of the respondent, from which judgment this appeal is taken.
It is contended by counsel for appellant that the board of county commissioners never have created or established a justice’s precinct in Idaho county; that the only precincts established by said board in said county have been election precincts, and that an election precinct is not the kind of precinct in which the law provides that there shall be elected two justices and one constable.
The stipulation of facts shows, among other facts, the following: That no precinct designated in terms as a justice or constable precinct, or otherwise than by the general term “election precinct,” has ever been established or created in said county of Idaho. That the said county has, by the order of the board of county commissioners thereof prior to every general election that has been holden therein since the adoption of the state constitution, been divided into election precincts, and that the boundaries of said precincts have been duly defined, but that none of said precincts have ever in terms been designated as justice’s precincts in said order. That prior to the said several general elections, respectively, proclamations of election were duly made by the clerk of the board of county commissioners of said county, giving notice, among other things, of the election of two justices of the peace, and one constable in each and all of said precincts so created. That the said precincts, so created, have at all times been accepted and created by the county commissioners and by the officers of said county, by the electors and citizens thereof, and by the public generally as justice’s and constable’s precincts. That all justices and constables that
It is thus shown that said North Grangeville precinct was established by the board and under its supervision justices of the peace were elected, qualified and acted as such, and it appears that no other precincts were created or established by said board in said county than those known and commonly called election precincts. It also appears that such election precincts were treated and considered as precincts in which justices of the peace should be and were elected.
Applying the law to those facts, was North Grangeville precinct entitled to two justices of the peace, or, in other words, a justice’s precinct? Section 1759, Eevised Statutes, specifies the jurisdiction and power of the board of county commissioners, and subdivisions 2 and 3 thereof are as follows: “2. To divide the counties into precincts, school, road and other districts required by law, change the same and create others, as convenience requires; 3. To establish, abolish and change election precincts, and to appoint judges of elections, canvass all election returns, declare the result, and issue certificates thereof.”
, Section 1813, Eevised Statutes, provides that the officers of precincts are two justices of the peace and one constable, and such other inferior and subordinate officers as are provided by law or by the board of county commissioners.
Section 466, Eevised Statutes, inter alia, that at each general election there shall be elected “two justices of the peace and one constable for each precinct of each county,” which provision was substantially re-enacted by the first state legislature in 1891. (See Sess. Laws 1891, p..60, see. 11.) It is there provided that “At the general election, A. D. 1892, and every alternate year thereafter, there shall be elected in each justice’s precinct, except wards in incorporated cities, two justices of the peace and one constable, etc.” Thus, we have two kinds of precincts named in our statutes, to wit, “justice’s precincts” and “election precincts.” . .
A justice’s precinct and an election precinct may .have the same boundaries and cover the same territory, but not necessarily so. The former kind of precinct may include one or more election precincts, but an election precinct cannot include more than one justice’s precinct.
Said section 1759 was evidently taken from section 4046 of the Political Code, of California, but a slight change was made in the second subdivision of said section. That subdivision of section 4046 provides that the boards should have power “To divide the counties into "townships, school, road and other districts, etc.,” while the second subdivision of section 1759 provides that the boards shall have power “To divide the counties into precincts, school, road and other districts, etc.”
The word “townships” in the California statute was changed to the word “precincts” by the legislature of Idaho. In California, township governments are provided for and two justices of the peace are elected, at general elections, in each township, while in Idaho the law provides for precinct government and
. It is clear that the provisions of said section 1759, taken in connection with said section 1813 and section 11, page 60, Session Laws of 1891, contemplates and provides for the creation of two kinds of precincts or districts by boards of county commissioners. Subdivision 2, section 1759, requires the' county to be divided into precincts, and >the law provides for the election of two justices of the peace in each of such precincts, and said act of 1891 designates such precincts as “justice’s precincts,” while subdivision 3 of said section provides that election precincts must be established in each county.
In many of the counties of the state the respective boards of county commissioners have neglected and failed to establish, by order of the board, those two classes of precincts. The' custom in many of our counties has been to establish “election precincts” and authorize the election of two justices of the peace and one constable in each of such precincts, while to have properly followed the law they should have, established justice’s precincts as well as election precincts.
The board in Idaho county did not, in terms, establish any justice’s precincts, but did establish election precincts therein. It is stipulated that no precinct designated as a justice’s precinct was ever established in Idaho county. The custom was to district the county into election precincts and authorize the election of two justices of the peace and one constable in each of such precincts, thus making each election precinct a justice’s precinct de facto, at least. The board established the North Grangeville election precinct, and gave the required notice to
No doubt that said board intended to fully comply with the-requirements of the law and to provide for the election of as many justices of the peace and constables as public convenience require. .
We are informed that there are about forty-four election precincts in Idaho county, and if each of such precincts is established as a justice’s precinct, the law would require the election of eighty-eight justices of the peace in that county. The question arises, Does the convenience of the people of Idaho county require so many justices of the peace ? Section 6, article 18 of the state constitution provides, among other things, that the legislature shall by general and uniform laws provide for the election of such precinct officers as public convenience-may require. And it is the duty of the respective boards of county commissioners to consider that matter and in establishing justice’s precincts to establish no greater number than the convenience of the public requires.
This court will not do that, but concludes that the establishment of election precincts and the election of-two justices and one constable in each of said precincts is a sufficient compliance with the law to establish such precincts as justice’s precincts. We therefore conclude that North Grangeville election precinct was a justice’s precinct, and that respondent is a duly elected and qualified justice of the peace in and for that-precinct.
Judgment of the court below is affirmed with costs in favor of respondent.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- STATE ex rel. GRIFFITH v. VINEYARD
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Justice’s Precinct — Election Precinct — Election of Justice of Peace. ■ 1. Subdivision 2, section 1759, Revised Statutes of 1887, and section 11, page 61, Session Laws of 1891, require the board of county commissioners to divide their county into justice’s precincts. 2. Subdivision 3 of said section 1759 requires such board to establish election precincts in their county and while a justice’s precinct may include one or more election precincts, an election precinct cannot include more than one justice’s precinct. 3. In a county where the board has failed, in terms, to establish justice’s precincts, but have designated all precincts established as election precincts, and such precincts are treated as justice’s precincts, and two justices of the peace and one constable are elected therein, such precincts will be held to be justice’s precincts as well as election precincts. (Syllabus by the court.)