:

1

the act of congress. But the docket is evidence of the entries. which the law requires to be made only.2

(5) Construction of Entries in Docket.-Considerable allowance should be made for the justice not being familiar with judicial proceedings. But the docket record must show jurisdiction, and while this is true, yet whether the entries in the docket do or do not show jurisdiction, is a question oftentimes of construction, and the interpretation to be given the language of the justice used in his entries should be fair and reasonable.3

(6) Docket Must Show Jurisdiction. The justice court being a court of inferior and limited jurisdiction, it is held, in nearly all the States, that when it attempts to act, jurisdiction must appear upon the record kept of its action.4

0. JUSTICE'S TRANSCRIPT (1) What It Must Contain.-A transcript is a copy of an original writing, yet it is said that a copy of the proceedings before a justice "would be an exemplification." 5 Hence, to be a transcript full and complete, it must contain all of the original proceedings as they have been recorded in the docket as required by law.6

1. Hutchins v. Gerrish, 52 N. H. 205; s. c., 13 Am. Rep. 19; Carpenter v. Pier, 30 Vt. S1. As to foreign judgments generally, see Lazier v. Westcott, 26 N. Y. 146; s. c., 82 Am. Dec. 424, and note.

2. Statements not required by law to be put upon the docket are not admissible in evidence, and are surplusage. Hagaman v. Neitzell, 15 Kan. 383; Armstrong v. State, 21 Ohio St. 357.

3. Wilton Town Co. v. Humphrey, 15 Kan. 372; Vroman v. Thompson, 51 Mich. 452. "While a justice's docket entry is entitled to a fair and reasonable interpretation, it must nevertheless show by reasonable intendment that he had jurisdiction." Mudge v. Yaples, 58 Mich. 307; O'Connell v. Hotchkiss, 44 Conn. 51; Benson v. Dyer, 69 Ga. 190. And the construction should be such as will sustain the judgment if it can fairly be so. Roach v. Montserrat Coal Co., 71 Mo. 398. "If from the record can be gathered what the magistrate intended to do and decide, and there is that which, however irregularly and inartificially prepared, can be construed into an expression of that intention, the record will be upheld as a sufficient record of the intended act and decision." Wilton Town Co. v. Humphrey, 15 Kan. 372.

4. Com. v. Fay, 126 Mass. 235; Storm v. Adams, 56 Wis. 137; Graver v. Fehr, 89 Pa. St. 460; Clagne v. Hodgson, 6 Minn. 329; White v.

Thompson, 3 Oreg. 115; Benson v. Dyer, 69 Ga. 190; Barnes v. Holton, 14 Minn. 357; Mudge v. Yaples, 58 Mich. 307; Brahmstead v. Ward, 44 Wis. 591; Rohrbough v Reed, 57 Mo. 292; Allen v. Jackson, 86 N. Car. 321; Kane v. Desmond, 63 Cal. 464; Haggard v. Atlantic etc. R. Co., 63 Mo. 302. See Murfree's Justice, Practice, § 108, and cases cited. "When it can be ascertained from their dockets that they have in substance carried out the requirements of the law, a mere technical defect or informality should not be held sufficient to vitiate the proceedings." Garrett v. Wood, 3 Kan. 224; Wilton Town Co. v. Humphrey, 15 Kan. 372. But this principle of the text does not apply when the justice sits as an examining court in preliminary examinations, and then it is not necessary that his authority to act should affirmatively appear on the face of the proceedings, in order to support their validity when collaterally assailed. Harrison v. State, 79 Ala. 59.

5. Bouv. L. Dict. (11th ed.), p. 596. As to what the original docket should contain, see tit. DoCKET, supra.

6. The transcript cannot be evidence of anything other than that required by law to be placed on the docket. Armstrong v. State, 21 Ohio St. 357. If the justice enters statements upon his docket not required by law to be placed there, such statements do not thereby become a part of the record,

And strict technicality is not required.1

(2) Certification of Transcript.-The transcript must be authenticated by the justice in the manner provided by law.2 If the transcript is to be used in another State, the provisions of the constitution of the United States, and the legislation thereunder, must be looked to; for the provisions that "full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other State," have been held to be applicable to proceedings before the justice.4 Hence the certificate to a transcript of the justice proceedings must be formal, and in a measure technical.5

(3) Transcript as Evidence.-The transcript of a justice judgment is evidence of it when the proceedings have been properly proved or duly authenticated.1

XIV. EX OFFICIO JURISDICTION—1. As Coroner.-In many of the States, under certain circumstances, the justice may act as coroner.2

2. To Hold County Court.-In England there was a court of general quarter sessions of the peace. It was held by two or more justices of the peace, one of whom was of the quorum. The jurisdiction of this court was generally to try smaller misdemeanors against the public, and especially "offences relating to the game, highways, ale houses, bastard children, the settlement and provision for the poor, vagrants, servants' wages, apprentices and popish recusants."3 And after the likeness of that court there are a few of the States in which the justices of the peace collectively hold courts, called county courts.4

the clerk." 3rd. "The seal of the court annexed, if there be a seal." 4th. "A certificate of the judge, chief justice or presiding magistrate, as the case may be, that the said attestation is in due form." U. S. Rev. Stat. § 905. Abbott's Trial, Ev. 542. The "certificate of the presiding judge, being the evidence prescribed by law that this form has been observed, is at once indispensable and conclusive." Hutchins . Gerrish, 52 N. II. 205; s. c., 13 Am. Rep. 19. See further, Norwood v. Cobb, 20 Tex. 588; Hatcher v. Rocheleau, 18 N. Y. 86; Abbott's Trial, Ev. 543. But there is no officer known as clerk of a justice of the peace. First Nat. Bank v. Beresford, 78 Ill. 391. Yet it has been often decided that the same person may be judge and clerk of the same court, and that he "may certify its proceedings in each capacity, we think has been settled beyond controversy." Case v. Huey, 26 Kan. 553, 560; citing Bissel v. Edwards, 5 Day (Conn.) 363, 366; State v. Hinchman, 27 Pa. 479; Sally v. Geinter, 13 Rich. (S. Car.) 72; Low v. Burrows, 12 Cal. 181, 188; Catlin v. Underhill, 4 McLean (U. S.) 199. See Lazier v. Westcott, 26 N. Y. 146; s. c., 82 Am. Dec. 404, and note.

York, that the certificate of a justice's judgment, to be competent evidence, should show jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the person. Benn v. Borst, 5 Wend. (N. Y.) 292. But compare Jackson v. Rowland, 6 Wend. (N. Y.) 666.

2. In Ohio, when the office of coroner becomes vacant, or the coroner is absent from the county, or a dead body is found more than ten miles from where the coroner lives, any justice of the county can hold inquests over any dead body so found with all

powers of coroner. Rev. Stat. Ohio (1880), § 620. In Mississippi, when the coroner cannot be had in due time. Rev. Code Miss. (1880), § 2294. In Iowa, when the coroner is unable to act or absent. Rev. Laws Iowa (1880), § 1467. (1880), § 1467. It is the same in Tennessee. M. & V. Code Tenn. (1884), § 6144. In New York, in an emergency, Rev. Stat. N. Y. (1882), p. 2574. În Louisiana, as in Iowa. Vor. Rev. Stat. La. (1881), § 2055. May act in Alabama, under like circumstances, as in Iowa. Code Ala. (1876), § 761, 4003. It is about the same law in many of the States. Gen. Stats. N. H. (1867), p. 499; Code Cal. (1876), § 4289; Gen. Laws Oreg. (1872), p. 280; Comp. Laws Kan. 1885), § 1553. In Rhode Island, if no coroners have been elected. Stats. R. I. (1882). p. 707. 3. Cooley's Blackstone (2nd ed.), bk. 4, 270.

Pub.

4. In Kentucky, a county judge, once a year, holds the "court of claims," which court is composed of the county judge and the justices of the county. Ă

3. Drawing Jury. In some States it is the duty of a certain number of justices, on being notified, to attend the drawing of the names of the persons from the "jury box," who are thereby selected for the approaching term of the court of general jurisdiction to act as jurors therein.1

4. Solemnizing Marriage.-In nearly all the States, justices of the peace are authorized to solemnize marriage under the limitations and requirements of the statute.2

5. Taking Acknowledgments.-In many of the States, justices may take acknowledgments of deeds and other instruments in writing, and may take depositions and compel witnesses to attend for that purpose.3

6. Administering Oaths.--Justices of the peace are everywhere empowered to administer oaths.4

XV. PERSONAL LIABILITY OF THE JUSTICE.—The acts of a justice of the peace are said to be judicial or ministeriai.1 In England, and in the United States, no action will lie against a judge for what he does judicially—for judicial acts. And the fact that, in some States, the justice is required to enter into a bond conditioned for the faithful performance of the duties of his office, does not increase his liability or give rights of action against him that did not exist without the bond.3 At common law, justices' courts have no civil jurisdiction; hence, being created by statute, and being courts of limited authority, they must, at their peril, keep within their jurisdiction. If they exceed their authority, they are liable, and an honest intention cannot protect them in acting beyond their jurisdiction, but may mitigate damages. Just what are judicial acts, or what are mere ministerial duties of a justice are not very clearly pointed out by the authorities. Before bringing suit against a justice for damages, as a

be administered by a justice within the territorial limits of his own jurisdiction. Without those limits he cannot officiate unless especially authorized to do so. A justice is at the utmost a county officer; in some of the States he is merely a township officer. Out of the county, therefore, in the most of the States, and even out of his township, in some of them, he is a private citizen, no more, no less, and can exercise no official powers." Murfree's Justice, Practice, 72. See generally I Rev. Stat. Mo. (1879), § 3326; Comp. Laws Kan. (1885), §§ 3873-3876; St. & C. Code Ill. (1885), p. 1678; Dig. Stat. Ark. (1884), § 651; Stat. Minn. (1878), p. 786; Rev. Stat. Ohio (1880), § 583; Gen. Stat. N. H. (1867), pp. 64. 451. And in some States the justice may act as notary public. Vor. Rev. Stat. La. An. (1881), § 2055. And when no notary can be had, the justice may protest bills and notes. Rev. Laws N. J. (1877), p. 740. In Kansas, two justices, acting with the township trustee, are the judges of election in their townships. Comp. Laws Kan. (1885), § 3130.

1. See BREACH OF BOND, supra. 2. Floyd v. Barker, 12 Coke 23; Dicas v. Lord Brougham, 6 C. & P. 249; Garnett v. Ferrand, 6 B. & C. 611; Barnardiston, v. Soame, 2 Lev. 114. In the courts of this country the same rule prevails. Yates v. Lansing, 9 Johns. (N. Y.) 395; s. c., 6 Am. Dec. 290, with a valuable note, p. 303; Randall v. Brigham, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 535; Lange v. Benedict, 73 N. Y. 12; Barhyte v. Shepherd, 35 N. Y. 242; Evans v. Foster, I N. H. 377; Steele v. Dunham, 26

Wis. 396. See further Deering on Neg. 228; Shearman & Redfield (1st ed.), ch. 9; Wharton on Negligence, §§ 284, 285; Kibling v. Clark et al., 53 Vt. 379. Examine Evarts 7. Kiehl, 102 N. Y. 296.

3. Irion v. Lewis, 56 Ala. 190.

4. Ellis v. White, 25 Ala. 540; Martin v. Fales, 6 Shep. (Me.) 23; Vanbibber v. Vanbibber, 10 Humph. (Tenn.) 53.

5. Justices while acting within the scope of their authority are not answerable in a private action for the erroneous exercise of judicial functions with which they are invested, but if they transcend it they are liable to any one whose rights are thereby invaded; honesty of purpose may mitigate damages, but will not justify a clear usurpation of power. Truesdell v. Combs, 33 Ohio St. 186; citing Clarke v. May, 2 Gray (Mass.) 410; Knowles . Davis, 2 Allen (Mass.) 61; Cahoon v. Speed, 2 Jones L. (N. Car.) 133. See also Downing v. Herrick, Herrick, 47 Me. 462; Briggs . Wardwell, 10 Mass. 356; Kibling v. Clark, 53 Vt. 379.

6. "It has been held that all acts from the beginning to the end of a suit which the law required a justice to perform are judicial acts." Deering on Neg., § 228; citing Wertheimer v. Howard, 30 Mo. 420. And again it is held that functions of a justice "are ministerial in preserving the peace, hearing charges against offenders, issuing summons or warrants thereon, examining the informant and his witnesses, and in taking those examinations, binding over the parties and witnesses to prosecute, bailing the offender