The petitioner herein applies for a writ of mandate to he directed to the respondent herein in his capacity as county auditor of the county of Los Angeles, commanding him to audit and approve the petitioner’s claim and demand for the sum of $129, alleged to be due to petitioner as his salary as judge of the municipal court of the city of Long Beach for the period between July 24, 1925, and July 31, 1925, inclusive. The particular facts upon which his said application is based and is resisted are embraced in the stipulation of the parties hereto as to the facts of the case, which reads as follows:

The primary question which stands upon the threshold of this proceeding is this: Assuming, as the parties hereto assume, that the proper interpretation of the recent constitutional amendment relating to the creation of municipal courts and of the recent statute adopted in conformity therewith permits the establishment of a system of municipal courts in the city of Long Beach; and assuming that the said municipality has by proper amendment to its charter established such system of municipal courts, has the petitioner herein become by virtue thereof a judge of said municipal court, and as such entitled to the salary of such office, notwithstanding the fact that he has not been an admitted practitioner before the supreme court of this state for the period of five years immediately prior to the period during which he claims to have been a judge of the municipal court of the city of Long Beach and as such entitled to the salary of such office?

The provisions of the recent amendment to certain sections of article YI of the constitution of California relative to the qualifications of judges of municipal courts are two. The portion of section 11 thereof which relates thereto reads as follows:

The other provision in said constitutional amendment relative thereto is section 23 thereof, which reads as follows:

The petitioner, in support of his aforesaid contention, urges that we should give to the term “eligible” as used in section 23 of said amendment a meaning synonymous with “electable” and thus confine the scope of said section so as to exclude the sort of succession to the office of judge of the municipal court provided for in the preceding portion of said amendment, and cites Ward v. Crowell, 142 Cal. 587 [ 76 Pac. 491 ], as supporting his said contention. We do not so read that decision, nor do we find that it was intended to in any way overrule or depart from the definition of the term “eligible” as given in the ease of People v. Leonard, 73 Cal. 230 [ 14 Pac. 853 ], wherein this court held that said term when found in the constitution must be construed to mean “the qualification to hold as well as to be elected to” the particular office. We approve the foregoing definition of that term as applicable to its use in section 23 of said amendment to the constitution, especially since the same expression appears in said section in its original form.

The petitioner further argues that if the interpretation of the foregoing provisions of the constitutional amendment for which he contends is not adopted a serious condition will arise with relation to municipal courts and their judges,' for the reason that neither the amendment in question nor the statute recently enacted for the purpose of giving effect to its provisions contemplate the appointment by the Governor of any person or persons to the office of judge of the municipal court until a vacancy has occurred in such office, and that such vacancy can occur only through the cessation of a prior incumbency. This question, however, is fully discussed in the case of Wallace v. Payne, post, p. 539 [ 241 Pac. 879 ], and to which reference is hereby made for a determination of this question.

It is our conclusion from the foregoing considerations that the application of the petitioner herein for a writ of mandate should be and the same is hereby denied.

Myers, C. J., Seawell, J., Shenk, J., Waste, J., Lawlor, J., and Lennon, J., concurred.