Lamb

A motion to quash the writ of certiorari issued in this case has been argued and submitted. It is based on several grounds, one of which is that the petition for the writ is multifarious. *320 That it is, does not admit of argument. But that objection is addressed wholly to our discretion, and in the exercise of it in this case, we have concluded not to grant the motion on that ground. If mam pleaders would give more heed to the requirement of the Code, that “ the complaint must contain a statement of the facts constituting the cause of action in ordinary and concise language,” it would conduce greatly toward simplifying and facilitating judicial proceedings. The remedy for a departure from that rule, if strictly administered in every case, might aggravate rather than alleviate the evil. For that reason courts are compelled to tolerate violations of the rule, even in cases where there does not seem to be any excuse for not observing it.

The writ which it is sought to have quashed, is directed, in accordance with the prayer of the petition, to twelve persons, who are alleged to constitute the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco, and to the Mayor, Auditor,…

I concur in the order. I agree that it is not the office of certiorari to stay the passage of a resolution introduced and noiv fending in the Board of Supervisors, and that neither the act of the Commissioners in appointing Appraisers, nor of the Supervisors in ratifying the appointment, was a judicial act; and that certiorari can be employed only to review the judgment or determination of a court, board, or officer exercising judicial functions. (Code Civ. Proc. p. 1,068; The S. V. W. W. v. Bryant, 52 Cal. 132 .) The petition, therefore, contains no avería ent which can justify the issue of the writ, as against the parties who are made respondent in this proceeding. It is not claimed that the County Clerk has been named a party for any other reason than because he is the immediate custodian of the record. But" whatever be the mode of service, the judg *329 ment attacked cannot be annulled or modified unless the tribunal, or officer by whom it has been rendered, has been made a party. The officer, indeed, may have no personal interest in sustaining his judgment or order, but the duty is imposed upon him of protecting his jurisdiction, and if he be denied a hearing, he may be shorn…