Reed

delivered the opinion of the Court.

*343 In Caulfield v. Hudson, at the last January term, we held that under-the constitutional distribution of judicial power, the District Court had no'appellate jurisdiction. We then, however, specially reserved the question as to the power of the District Court over the Probate Courts, and that question it now becomes necessary to decide. The 6th section of Article YI of the Constitutution declares: “The District Courts * shall have original jurisdiction in [343] law and equity in all civil cases, where the amount in dispute exceeds two hundred dollars, exclusive of interest. In all criminal cases not otherwise provided for, and in all issues of fact joined in the Probate Courts, their jurisdiction shall be unlimited.”

The question to be decided is, whether the word “unlimited” qualifies the character of the jurisdiction fixed by the term .“original,” or whether it qualifies the specified limitation, as to amount in value fixed in the first paragraph of. the section. We are compelled to decide in favor of the latter proposition. The term “original” is a general term of limitation, contradistinguished from the term “appellate,” which latter…