cupation of the territory by American troops, but temporarily the court of the first instance and protransferring the business from the abolished courts e retained and to the Supreme Court.1

act passed March 16th entitled "an act to organize ict courts of the state of California," nine judicial were formed and provision was made for a resident each district. As in the case of the justices of the Court, the first district judges, according to the ion, were to be chosen by the Legislature. The act time for holding courts in the various judicial disescribed the number of terms for each, and limited sdiction.2 District courts were to have "original on in law and equity in all civil cases, where the n dispute exceeds $200, exclusive of interest; in all

of California, 1850, 77.

icial districts were named according to their respective numbers. mprised the counties of San Diego and Los Angeles; the second, ara and San Luis Obispo; the third, Branceforte, Santa Clara, ta, and Monterey; the fourth, San Francisco; the fifth, Colaimne, San Joaquin, and Mariposa; the sixth, Sacramento and El e seventh, Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, and Mendocino; the », Sutter, and Yuba; and the ninth, Butte, Colusi, Trinity, and atutes of California, 1850, 93.

es chosen by the Legislature for the preliminary term of two cribed by the constitution (the regular term from January, 1853, x years) were as follows: for the first district, O. S. Witherby; Henry A. Tefft; for the third, John H. Watson; for the fourth, s; Charles M. Creaner for the fifth; and J. S. Thomas, Robert m. R. Turner, and W. Scott Sherwood for the sixth, seventh,

Jounale of the California Le

criminal cases not otherwise provided for; and in all issues of fact joined in the probate court; and in all cases involving the title or possession of real property their jurisdiction shall be unlimited." The county clerks were to be ex officio clerks of the district courts in and for their respective counties.1

An act to organize county courts was passed April 13th. The county judges were to hold annually at the county seats of their respective counties four terms, commencing on the third Monday of January, April, July, and October, for the trial of appeals from justices of the peace, and such special cases as were pending therein. Special terms might be held for the transaction of probate business when the county judge considered such special sessions necessary.2

Two days earlier, April 11th, was passed an act to organize the court of sessions in each county. It was to be composed of the county judge who was to preside, and two justices of the peace of the county. The latter were to be styled associate justices, and were to be chosen by the justices of the peace of the county, who were to be called together for that particular purpose by the judge of the county. The court of session was to have jurisdiction throughout the county over all "cases of assault, assault and battery, breach of the peace, riot, affray, and petit larceny, and over all misdemeanors punishable by fine not exceeding $500, or imprisonment not exceeding three months." Power and jurisdiction in certain other cases were specified, and the

the court fixed for the second Monday of the months ary, April, June, August, October, and December year.1

related acts passed by the first Legislature were wing: "an act to fix the terms of the superior court ity of San Francisco" passed April 17th; "an act te proceedings in criminal cases;" and an amendthe same passed April 20th; "an act defining the commencing civil actions," April 22nd; and "an act h all laws now in force in this state, except such as n passed by the present session of the Legislature," nd; 2 "an act to regulate proceedings in courts of of the peace in civil cases," passed April 10th. A olution was passed requiring the appointment of a ee of three from each House to designate what laws ral character should be immediately published under roviding for the early publication of laws. Joint ns were also passed classifying the justices of the court of the city of San Francisco and the justices preme Court.5

3

of California, 1850, 210-11. 79, 257, 275, 332, 343 and 342. 65.

12.

68 and 462.

CHAPTER XV

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND OTHER LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS

Counties

THE Senate committee on county boundaries was composed of De la Guerra, Green, Bidwell, and Lippincott.1 On January 4th the committee, through its chairman, De la Guerra, made its first report. A subdivision of the state into eighteen counties was recommended by the committee, and seats of justice were named in all the counties with three exceptions. The committee reported that they had not thought it advisable to form an entire county within the mining districts because of the transitory character of the mining population. Such districts were therefore placed within those counties most accessible, "and with which their trade and communication" were chiefly connected.2

The report was not considered until the seventh when, after some discussion, it was returned to the committee for their reconsideration. A few days later, January 16th, the Senate received a petition from one hundred and fortyone citizens of Santa Cruz "protesting against the attach

r including in, the county of Monterey, the district Cruz, and praying that a county may be granted known and styled as the county of Santa Cruz." tion was referred to the committee on county boundnd influenced the report made by them on January There were evidently protests from other places Santa Cruz, so that the second report was entirely from the first. Instead of eighteen, the committee ommended subdividing the state into twenty-five and in several instances names were changed. San county became Calavera; Oro was changed to e; Benicia, to Solano; Frémont, to Yolo; and Readasta. The seven new counties formed were Coloma, oluse, Trinity, Marin, Mendocino and Santa Cruz.3 umerous amendments imposed on the bill during its through the Senate was one changing the name of uz to Branciforte. The amended bill was returned ssembly on January 25th, but did not receive conn until four days later. The House amended, re›m its amendments, and finally passed the bill with anges on February 13th, the vote for its adoption animous. A notice of its passage was sent to the the 14th, and the next day the amended bill passed

5

Is of the California Legislature, 1850, 92.

5.

.20-21.

300-101.

'19.

'35.