{"character_count": 5631, "word_count": 979, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9623000025749207], "ccnet_perplexity": [500.3999938964844], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
stitution in respect to the appellative juris- dicton of this Court; and that the dictum in the case of the State'r. Grdham, s4srk- Rep, 428, so far as 1t purports to assert that the appellate is not vested in the Supreme Court by the Constitution in certain cases, is ia- correct. Notwithstanding the superintend- ing control given by the Constitution to the Supreme Court over all inferior and other Courts of law and equity, Is in no respect different from that possessed by the Circuit Courts, except in this, that the latter is lim- tied to the CoNnty Courts and Justices of the Peace, while the former IS extended to all Courts in the State. The language of the grant in both instances imports the same thing, and the power derived from. it must be exercised in like manner by each tribu- nal, consequently no appellate jurisdiction is granted thereby to either Yet the power vested by the Constitution in the Supreme Court to issue writs of error and supersedeas, certlorarl and habeas corpus, mandamus and quo warranto, and other remedial writs, and U hear and determine the same, does ia our opinion confer upon this Court, by express grant, the power of adjudicating all cases de- tsrmlned by any inferior judicial tribunal in the State. where, according to the principles of the common law, the case so determined can, by means of any of the writs aforesaid. be legally und appropriately brought before 1t; and to this extent the Constitution gives to this Court an appellate jurisdiction, of which it cannot be divesed by any act of the Legislature But the Legislature is fully competent to prescribe by law the order of proceeding to be observed in the exercise of this power, provided the proceeding so pre- scribed does not in any manner abridge or effect the jurisdiction of this Court

 The proceeding in the present case before the Justice Of the Peace is clearly not.a pro- ceeding according to the course of the com mon law. His jurisdiction over the subject matter of the controversy is derived from the Constitution, and the mode of proceeding adopted ill the case is prescribed by statute. It therefore, in our opinion, belongs to the class of cases in which the writ of certorari would be at common law. And therefore, if our conclusion in the premises is right, it follows, as necessary consequence, that so much and such portion of the enactments of the Legislature, approved Feb. 14th and Dec. l7th, 1888, already cited, as purport to make the judgment of the Justice of the Peace pro- nounced ill favor of the plaintiff in such case final, and inhibit this Court or a Judge there of, in vacation, from issuing writ of certio- rari therein, and divest this Court of its juris- diction thereupon to hear, adjudicate, and revise such case, is in conflict with and re- pugnant to the Constitution of this State, and therefore null and void.

 These questions being thus disposed of, it becomes our duty to consider and determine upon the validity of the proceedings and judg- ment of the Justice of the Peace as shown by his return to the writ of certiorari.

 The summons required the defendant, An thony, " to answer unto William 4. Dawdy, in an action on account;o but 1t in no wise appears that any account whatever in favor of Dawdy against Anthony was ever pro- duced to the Justice or filed in the cause. while the return contains an abundance of proof that the proceeding was considered by the Justice as founded on change ticket, purportng to have been drawn and issued for the purpose of circulation as change or currency; but it entirely fails to show that the instrument upon which the suit was found- ed, notwithstanding it purports to have been executed by the defendant, Anthony, was filed with the Justice before the summons was issued against the defendant, according to provisions of the l7th section of chapter therefore appears to have been issued without authority and contrary to law. It is a case within the principle adiudged in Reeues D. Ciark decided by this Court at the last Jan uary term thereof, in which it was resolved that the proceedings before Justice of the Peace must legally show that the. subject matter in controversy is within his jurisdic- ton: otherwise the whole proceeding must be regarded as coran non j,tdice and vold.- In this case nothing appears as the founda- ton of the suit, of which the justice had ju- risdicton. The summons appears to be based upon an account; but no account appears to have been filed, either before or after the summons issued; nor does the instrument purporting to have been executedby Anthony, though copied ill the transcript of the Jus tice's proceedings, appear at any time to have been filed with the Justice, consequently It cannot in our opinion be legally considered as the foundation of the suit, or more prop erly speaking as constituting the subject mat ter in controversy between the parties; be- cause, to entitle 1t to be so considered it must in some legal manner be made to appear that the summons and subsequent proceed ings in the case were in fact based upon 1t, and that 1t constituted in reality subject matter of controversy between the parties in the case. The return of the Justice does not establish this fact; and therefore the pro- ceeding before him appears to have been CO., ram non jadice, and for this cause ought to be and is hereby quashed.

 THE VAN BUREN TREASURY NoTEs.-Ihe examination into this ismysterlous robbery have terminated for the present. The Commis- sioner, having evidence to satisfy him thai Gage was in some way implicated in the ai- fair has committed him for trial in defaulf ol