
    [Sac. No. 1175.
    In Bank.
    June 26, 1903.]
    H. L. DAVIDSON, Constable, etc., Appellant, v. OTTO VON DETTEN, County Auditor, Respondent.
    Constitutional Law—Amendment oe County Government Act—Title.—The amendment of 1901 to the County Government Act of 1897 was constitutional, and sufficiently expressed its purpose in its title. [The case of Beach v. Von Betten, ante, p. 462, affirmed.]
    
      Id.—Special Legislation—General Law—Conflicting Special Provision.—Section 4 of the act of 1901, providing that in all townships there shall be two constables, excepting that in townships having a population of less than six thousand there shall be but one constable, is general in its character, and applies to all counties in the state; and its constitutionality is not affected, as being special legislation, by a conflicting provision in counties of the eleventh class, which, conceding it to be special and void, would only affect counties of that class, and would not impair the efficiency of the act as to constables in all other counties of the state.
    Id.—Appellant not Interested—Question not Presented.—The appellant, not being interested in counties of the eleventh class, cannot raise the question as to the validity of the conflicting provision applicable thereto, and it is unnecessary to decide such question.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Joaquin County. W. B. Nutter, Judge.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    Ashley & Neumiller, for Appellant.
    A. H. Carpenter, Amicus Curiæ, for Respondent.
   THE COURT.

This case involves the constitutionality of the County Government Act of 1901. The act has been held constitutional in Beach v. Von Detten, ante, p. 462, this day decided, and is conclusive of this case. The additional point is made here that section 4 of the act of 1901 is special and local and not uniform in its operation. This contention is based upon the fact that section 4 of the act of 1901 provides that in all townships there shall be two constables, except that in townships having a population of less than six thousand there shall be but one constable, and that subdivision 17 of section 168 of the same act provides that in counties of the eleventh class (Humboldt County) “all townships having a population of over seven thousand shall elect two constables. ’ ’ Section 4 is general in its character, and applies to all counties of the state. It expressly states that in all townships having a population of less than six thousand there shall be but one constable, and in all other townships there shall be two constables. The provision of subdivision 17 of section 168 allows one constable in townships having a population of less than seven thousand, and to this extent appears to be in conflict with the general provision. If we concede that the provision as to counties of the eleventh class is special and. void, it would only affect counties of that class. It would not impair the efficiency of the act as to constables in all other counties in the state. (Hale v. McGettigan, 114 Cal. 120.) Appellant cannot raise the question, as he is in no way interested, and it is not necessary to decide as to constables in Humboldt County.

The judgment is affirmed.  