
    The State ex rel. Radl vs. Shaughnessey.
    
      January 9
    
    
      January 30, 1894.
    
    
      Supreme court: Original jurisdiction: Quo warranto.
    This court declines to take original jurisdiction of a proceeding in the nature of quo warranto to try the title to office of a justice of the peace in the city of Portage, the question presented not being one which affects the state at large.
    
      A motion was made in this court on behalf of Charles Sadi for leave to file an information in the nature of quo warranto. The facts are stated in the opinion.
    
      Sublee A. Cole, for the relator.
   Per CuRiam.

E. M. Shaughnessey is an acting justice of the peace in Portage. As such justice, he issued a summons, which was served upon the relator, in favor of Charles Chislow. The relator contends that Shaughnessey was appointed by the common council of Portage to fill a vacancy caused by the resignation .of another, and that the common council had no authority to make such appointment ; and he therefore seeks in this proceeding to have Shaughnessey’s title to such office determined by this court in this action. There can be no question but that the circuit court has jurisdiction, upon a proper application, in such a case. Const. art. VII, sec. 8; R. S. sec. 3463 et seq. Since the decision in Attorney General v. Railroad Cos. 35 Wis. 425, 521, et seq., this court-has refused to take original jurisdiction in the class of cases mentioned in sec. 8, art. VII, of the constitution, except where it affects the state at large, this court judging of the contingency in each case for itself. State ex rel. Wood v. Baker, 38 Wis. 71, 77; State v. St. Croix Boom Corp. 60 Wis. 565. The question here presented does not so affect the state at large.

The writ is denied.  