Chinn

Chinn v. Gunn

Good Law
148 Cal. 755·1906 Cal. LEXIS 366·84 P. 669
Supreme Court of CaliforniaFebruary 27, 1906S.F. No. 3639.California1,245 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Shaw, J.

This is an application by the plaintiff for a writ of mandate to compel the defendant, as auditor of Napa County, to issue his warrant upon the treasurer of that county for the sum of fifty-five dollars for plaintiff’s services as justice of the peace of St. Helena Township in criminal cases for the month of January,. 1903, and for a like sum for similar services for February, 1903. The auditor refuses to issue his warrant for a larger sum than thirty dollars per month. A demurrer was sustained to the complaint and a judgment rendered thereon in favor of the defendant, from which the plaintiff appeals.

The case is similar in its facts to that of Johnson v. Gunn, ante, p. 745, [ 84 Pac. 665 ], but it differs in one important particular. The act of 1901 (Stats. 1901, p. 750, c. 234) provided that the townships of counties of the twenty-seventh class should be classified by population “as shown by the federal census of 1900.” At the time this act was passed, and at the time the census of 1900 was taken, the township of St. Helena did not exist. It was created in August, 1902, by dividing one of the previously existing townships of the county and forming therefrom two townships. The…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.