COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY IMPORTANT DECISION BY THE SU-

 pREME COURT
{"newspaper_name": "The Arkansas banner.", "edition": "01", "page": "p2", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 6116, "word_count": 1120, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9757000207901001], "ccnet_perplexity": [607.2999877929688], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}


 By an act of the General Assembly GAIodgecd ! by Col Fowler) approved 23d November, lSlI, the November term of the Circuit Court of Pulaski county was postponed to the 2d Monday in January l ls45. By an act of the same session, to regulate the times of holding the Circuit Courts of the 9th Circuit, approved January 9th, 1s45 tis provided that the Circuit Courts of Pulaski county shall Hereader be held on the 2d Mondays in April and October, and the act Is made to take effect from is passage (F. W. Trapnall, Esq, is the author oi this latter act)

 The Hon. J. J. Cendenin, Judge of the 5th Cir cuit being of opinion that the act Of the 9th Janua- ", 1915, operated as repeal of the act of 23d No yember, Isii and thereby continued the said post poned January term of the court to the 2d Monday lin April, declined holding said January term

 Fredercl, w Trapnall Esq, petidoned the su- preme Court for maaaamus against the Judge, to compel him to hold said court stating his refusal so to do, and that he the said Trapna prejudiced, as an attorney of said court and as plaintiff in suits pending in said court by the said refusal of said Judge to hold said term of said court.

 The court ordered rule against said Judge, to show why said mandamus should not issue.

 In his response, the Judge set out the reasons above stated for his refusal to hold the court.

 The case came mp for hearing in the Supreme | Court on the 18th January.

 Mr. Trapnal argued that the act of the 23d No- vember was a special act, and was not therefore repealed by the act of the 9th January, whchhe con tended was general inits character To sustain this position, he relied upon the case of Mcfarland vs. the Stale Bank Ark. Rep. AT, Sc. l Judge Clendenin replied that he had no personal feeling in the matter. That he would prefer hold ing the court if it could be done legally. But was unwilling to take the responsibility of involving the community in the ruinous litigation that would ne cessary grow out of holding term of the court un- authorized by law He argued that the act of the 2Sd November was as general in its nature the act of the 9th of January, and did not therefore come within the rule in McFarland's case. That the laws being of the same character, and conflicting, the latter repealed the former, Sc.

 Gen. S. II. Hampstead also took part in the argu- ment. He expressed doubt as to the power of the Supreme Court to issue mandamus compelling Circuit Judge to hold term of his court. And then argued that the position of the Circuit Judge was correct &e.

 Judge Oldham delivered the opinion of the court. and it is involving principles of general inter est, deem it we'll to publish the substance of the decision.

 1st By the Constitation of the State, the Supreme Court possesses a experimenting and controlling power over all inferior courts, and for the purpose of exercising this power, may issue appropriate writs, and among them the writ of maadamus And on the presentation of a proper case, may issue a mqadantus to Circuit Court, az we'll as to other in- ferior tribunals, and enforce obedience by attach ment, &c.

 2d. This is prerogatve writ introducedtopr pre- vent disorder from failure of justice and defect of police, and should be used on all occasions when the law has established no specific remedy, and where, in justice, there should be one And lies to an in- ferior jurisdiction or officer to compel the perform ance of a duty Il follows, that if Judge of the Circuit Court refuse to perform duty required of him by law, this court upon proper case made cut by party agreyed, would issue writ of manda- mus 10 compel him.

 Sd. To entitle party to the benefit of this writ, he must show that he has specific legal right, and no other adequate remedy.

 4th. The petitioner, Trapnal states that the re- fusa of the Judge to hold the court would be preju dicia to himself and clients-whch is not denied in the response of the Judge. Its clear that if Judge captiously refuse to hold court at time prescribed by law, the writ may issue in favor of one agrieved, on proper showing, to compel him, Sd Black. Com ll0

 9th. The Judge, in his response, contends that the act of November 23, l544, postponing the No vember term of the court, and requiring it to be held on the 2d Monday in January. 1s45 was repealed by the act of January 9th, 1915. ltis settled rule in the constructing of statutes that all acts upon the same subject, must be construed together, and made to stand if reconclable. It is equally we'll settled that to accomplish this object, courts cannot disre- gard the obvious import of language, when words and terms of clear and definite signiGcahon used Effect must if possible, be given to the intention of the Legislature but accomplish this recourse must first be had to the language employed in the act and if that be unambguous, we can proceed no further in the inquiry.

 9th. The act of 23d November provides that ''the approaching term Of the Circuit Court of Pu- laski, now (then) required to be held on the last Monday of November, lS44 is hereby postponed un- til the 2d Monday of January, lS45, and shall be held on the said 2d Monday of January, 1915, in- stead of said last Monday of November, 1874. The 3d section provides for the transfer of process to the January term, This act operated as a sus- pension of the acts in force the time of its passage requiring the court to be held the last Monday in November Its provisions must be regarded as having the same operative effect as though the original law, prescribing the time of holding the courts, had declared that the court should be held on the 2d Monday of January.

 At the time of the passage of the act of January 9h, the aforementioned act composed part of the laws then in loree requiring the courts of the 5th circuit to be held at times different from those spe- eiied in the last mentioned act. The act of the 9th of January, lSl5, provides tha the courts sereGer to be held should be held on other and different days than provided for by the laws then in force,

 Il. ..liI a=aA d.