Zander

Murray, C. J., concurred.

By statute, the Legislature has conferred jurisdiction on Justices Courts, where the sum in controversy does not exceed five hundred dollars:

The only question raised in this case, is whether the statute is constitutional.

The Constitution provides that, “The District Court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases of law and equity, where the amount in dispute exceeds two hundred dollars.” Art. 6, §6. In Hudson v. Caulfield, 3 Cal., 389 , we had occasion to construe this section of the Constitution, and there held, that the jurisdiction thus given was ex *231 clusively original, and that the District Court could not exercise powers which belong to an appellate tribunal.

In that case we remarked, that in the subdivision of power among the different arms of the judiciary, there was an attempt at great care and accuracy, in assigning to each a well-defined portion of official duty. In doing this, there must have been some specific object, or leading motive, and no other appears so reasonable as that it was intended to limit, as well as to confer, jurisdiction, in order the better to secure the independence of this department of government. 3 Cal.…