
    State ex rel. Wixon, Respondent, vs. Cleveland, Appellant.
    
      October 5
    
    October 24, 1916.
    
    
      Constitutional law: Justices’ courts: Jurisdiction.
    
    Ch. 423, Laws 1911, — providing that justices of the peace shall not, in counties containing a city of the first class, have jurisdiction of garnishment, replevin, or attachment actions or of bastardy proceedings, nor, in cities of the first class, of actions for forcible entry and detainer, — was within the power of the legislature, under sec. 15, art. VII, Const, of Wis., and does not contravene either sec. 9, art. I, Const, of Wis., or amendm. XIV, Const, of U. S.
    Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: W. J. TubNer, Circuit Judge. '
    
      Affirmed.
    
    The appeal is from an order sustaining petitioner’s demurrer to defendant’s return to an alternative writ of prohibition.
    The defendant is a justice of the peace in West Allis, a city of the fourth class and one of several cities within Milwaukee county, in which county is also a city of the first class.
    
      Tbe defendant, as snob justice of tbe peace, upon tbe petition of a resident of West Allis issued a summons in garnishment against tbe petitioner herein as defendant and bis employer, tbe Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company, as-garnishee defendant. Upon petitioner’s application tbe circuit court for Milwaukee county issued an alternative writ of prohibition to tbe defendant upon tbe ground that bis so acting was in violation of cb. 423, Laws 1911. Tbe defendant made return to such writ, alleging in substance as a justification that be was proceeding as such justice of tbe peace in and for said city of West Allis pursuant to sec. 3716, Stats., relating to garnishment and attachment in justice’s court, and in exercise of his judicial power commensurate with tbe necessities of tbe people of said city of West Allis and in such a manner as to promote their interests and convenience; that, ch. 423, Laws 1911, is unconstitutional in that it is in violation of sec. 15, art. VII, of tbe Wisconsin constitution and deprives tbe people of West Allis of certain judicial remedies without substituting in their stead other remedies by which defendant could enforce bis judgments and decrees. A demurrer to such return was sustained by tbe circuit court and an appeal taken.
    
      Joseph II. Tierney, for tbe appellant.
    
      John 8. Kaney, attorney, and Glifion Williams, of counsel, for tbe respondent.
   Eschweiler, J.

Tbe effect of this proceeding is to again challenge tbe power of tbe legislature to pass cb. 423, Laws 1911, which provides that in all counties containing a city of tbe first class, thereby designating Milwaukee county, no-justice of tbe peace in said county shall have jurisdiction or cognizance over tbe actions of garnishment, replevin, attachment, and bastardy proceedings, and that justices of tbe peace of tbe city of Milwaukee shall not exercise jurisdiction in actions of unlawful entry and detainer.

Tbe legislature by cb. 849, Laws 1909, created tbe civil ■court of Milwaukee county, designed to take tbe place, to a large extent, of tbe courts of justices of tbe peace in said county. Tbat law provided for bolding branches of said court from time to time in different parts of Milwaukee •county, wbicb provision would include tbe city of West Allis and other cities. Tbe jurisdiction taken away by cb. 423, Laws 1911, is now vested in such civil court.

It is contended by defendant in bis return that this depriving tbe justices of the peace of a city like West Allis of their former jurisdiction over tbe actions specified in said cb. 423 is a serious curtailment of tbe rights and remedies of tbe citizens of West Allis and places them at a great disadvantage in tbat they are compelled to travel to tbe city of Milwaukee for such relief, and tbat such legislation is in violation of tbe rights secured to them by sec. 9, art. I, of tbe Wisconsin constitution, relating to remedy for wrong. In appellant’s brief it is also claimed tbat bis rights secured by tbe Fourteenth amendment to tbe United States constitution are violated.

Tbe right of tbe people to have courts of justices of tbe peace is firmly secured by sec. 15, art. VII, Const., providing for tbe election of such officers, but tbat section also contains tbe following: “The justices thus elected shall have such civil and criminal jurisdiction as shall he prescribed by la/w"

In tbe case of State ex rel. Burke v. Hinkel, 144 Wis. 444, 129 N. W. 393, this court held tbat under this constitutional provision just quoted tbe legislature could not enact a law wbicb amounted to a practical abrogation of tbe powers of such justices. On tbe other band, it was held in the case of State ex rel. McLogan v. Burke, 161 Wis. 429, 154 N. W. 627, that the limitations upon tbe number and.powers of justices of tbe peace in Milwaukee county prescribed in this precise chapter under question, ch. 423, Laws 1911, and cbs. 424 and 468 of tbe,same year, were within tbe power of the legislature and not unconstitutional. Tbe precise question, therefore, as here raised has already been passed upon and determined by this court in tbe case last cited, which involved a still greater restriction upon the powers of the justices of the peace for Milwaukee city than is the situation here and settles the law upon this particular statute. It necessarily determined that there is no denial of any one’s rights under sec. 9, art. I, Const. There is no ground for claiming that it is a violation of the Fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution.

The order of the circuit court should therefore be affirmed.

By the Court. — Order affirmed.  