1880. [Citing Barton v. Kalloch, 56 Cal. 95;] People v. Ransom, supra. A county clerk of San Francisco, elected in September, 1879, was entitled to take his office in December of same year, under the consolidation act. In re Stuart, 53 Cal. 745. See cases collected under section 9, article XI, and Gross v. Kenfield, 57 Cal. 626; Treadwell v Yolo County, 62 Cal. 563. This section declares that judicial officers shall be elected at the same time and in the same manner as state officers, but there is no requirement that the term of office of such judicial offices as the legislature may authorize to be elected shall be uniform throughout the state. The provisions of section 11, of article VI, that the legislature shall determine the number of the justices of the peace to be elected in townships, cities, and cities and counties, show that it was not intended that the laws relating to this portion of the judicial system should be uniform throughout the state. And the pro vision of section 11, article IV, that the legislature shall fix by law the powers, duties, etc., of justices of the peace, is limited by sub-division 7, of section 25, of article IV, which prohibits certain local acts, and by section 11. of article I, requiring that laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation, but the term of ocffice of an officer is entirely distinct from his jurisdiction or duties, and a law of a general nature has a uniform operation, if it affects all the individuals of a class for which the legislature is authorized to make specific laws. The act of the legislature fixing the term of office of township justices as four years does not apply to the police court of the city and county of San Francisco. Kahn v. Sutro, 114 Cal. 318. SECTION 11. All laws relative to the present judicial system of the state shall be applicable to the judicial system created by this constitution until changed by legislation. The fee bill of 1876 [Stats. p. 586], applicable to the county of San Diego, so far as it provided for fees to be paid to clerk of District Court, and deposit to be made with him at the commencement of each suit, was a law relating to the judicial system of the state, and was kept in force and made applicable, by the constitution of 1879, to the courts organized thereunder. [Section 1, article XXII.] The act of March 16, 1889 [Stats. p. 232], amending the county government act of 1885, fixed the salary of county clerks and other officers, but as to counties of thirty-first class, made no provision as to the fees to be collected, and did not provide for a deposit to be made to cover fees. Under the former act [1876] the clerk was authorized to require a deposit of not more than ten dollars from plaintiff and three dollars from defendant, and to return to the parties any excess of fees remaining at termination of the action. There was no law requiring him to turn such money's into the county treasury. It is not due the county but is due the litigants, respectively. The People v. Hamilton, 103 Cal. 488. The act of March 1, 1878 [Stats. p. 881], vesting in the District Court the power of appointing police commissioners in San Francisco, did not thereby vest a judicial power, and such power did not devolve upon the judges of the Superior Court, and the act was not continued in force by this constitution. Heinlen v. Sullivan, 64 Cal. 378. The act of April 1, 1877, [Stats. p. 953] in relation to the house of correction in San Francisco, was not repealed by this constitution, and its provisions are applicable to the Superior Courts. Ex parte Flood, 64 Cal. 251. Upon organization of Superior Court the judicial system prevailing under the former constitution became so far vested in the new court, that it had power to fix and order the compensation of its stenographer. Ex parte Reis, 64 Cal. 233. And such new court has power to enquire into any election held by any corporate body pursuant to sections 312, 315 Civil Code. The corporate body is the corporation itself, not the board of directors. Wickersham v. Brit tain, 93 Cal. 34, 40. The clerk of the Superior Court has the same power to issue execution (without previous order of the court) as had the clerk of the former District Court. Dorn v. Howe, 59 Cal. 129. The law existing as to change of venue [Sec. 170, Code of Civil Procedure], existing at the time the motion was made, should be pursued. Barnhart v. Fulkerth, 59 Cal. 130. This section, so far as relates to the election and commencement of terms of office, went into effect July 4, 1879. Gross v. Kenfield, 57 Cal. 626; Barton v. Kalloch, 56 Cal. 99. County clerks were ex officio clerks of the District Court in their respective counties, under the former constitution, and they are ex officio clerks of the courts of record, in their respective counties, under the present constitution. People v. Hamilton, 103 Cal. 491. Justices courts are a part of the judicial system of the state and were not abolished by the constitution of 1879, but were continued and made subject to future legislation. As to legislation fixing terms of office of justices in cities and in townships see Kahn v. Sutro, 114 Cal. 318. This section is referred to in People v. Durrant, 116 Cal. 195, in connection with section 204 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which latter it is said is not unconstitutional and is but a continuation (as to San Francisco), of the section as it existed prior to adoption of this constitution, except that by amendments it has been made to apply to the present judicial system. SECTION 12. This constitution shall take effect and be in force on and after the fourth day of July, eighteen hundred and seventy-nine, at twelve o'clock meridian. so far as the same relates to the election of all officers, the commencement of their |