*1 suspicion only a have had could had and In this case sheriff suspicion Such might liquor person. on his that defendant knowledge of search. or authorize arrest did not defendant’s search, subsequent acquired by liquor possession of defendant’s back” not "relate suspicion, could verified officer’s authority. made legalize* arrest or the search suspect to had reason the sheriff As the contention that to moonshine, hardlv it is sell go was about to somewhere defendant necessary justi- cannot be say arrest without per- suspected arresting ground officer fied oh the doing noth- felony when he commit a arrested son intended such intent. tending to indicate or even ing its commission towards defendant, being was arrested It follows that whether unlawful person not, his the search' searched our constitutional meaning of therefore unreasonable and seizures. guaranty against [State unreasonable searches motion,to sup- Owens, supra.] Defendant’s supra; State v. Wills, sustained and should have been so obtained press the evidence admitted, as not have been should the trial the evidence Owens, objections. supra.] over evidence the State apparent without that cannot
Since it is remand useless to would be defendant make case for new trial. case- and the defendant the circuit court is reversed Kenwood, CC., concur. discharged. Davis and Cooley, foregoing opinion
PER CURIAM:—The judges concur. All of court. opinion of Judge, Presiding N. W. Appellant, Dietrich, Frank Ephriam Blackwell, Judges, District Townsend J. A. of Jefferson County Court County. (2d) 428.
E.E. appellant. Kleinschmidt for
Charles J. respondents. White for DAYIS, January 4, 1924, C.—On Treasurer of Jef- County brought ferson in equity defendants, pre- suit siding district of the Court Jefferson judgment to set aside an order and rendered said 18, 1923, on December that from December effect was fixed at the treasurer as such (in hundred lieu of fifteen per rate one thousand dollars annum county court), and per annum fixed dollars as theretofore enforcing court ren- enjoin said order. The defendants from appealed. defendants, in favor of dered November, plaintiff, established that adduced The evidence four a term of County for treasurer of Jefferson elected ending December January 1, beginning years, County entered 1916 the hun of fifteen at sum treasurer salary of the December until in force remained This order year. dred dollars December January 1921, until seemingly 1923, and county treasurer services for paid 1923, plaintiff hereto cause This dollars hundred of fifteen rate Appeals St. been fore 65; [Dietrich certiorari. Daues, ex
I.We are convinced that we are without appellate jurisdiction in this cause, under VI, Section 12, of the Mis-
souri Constitution, and, consequently, we have neither right power nor the to determine the merits of the controversy.
Certainly dispute in- amount is insufficient to invest us with hundred, jurisdiction, for that must seventy-five exceed dollars, it is evident that the dispute amount here involved does not ex six ceed hundred dollars. is clear the amount in dispute, any event, bring fails to cause within our Owen, 31 S. [Green Again, certainly title office under this State is not in- No one, volved. provision, attempts to plaintiff’s right deny contest the office -to only question him the to hold the office. involved *3 salary power of and fix the and the court to reduce the office thousand at the rate of one dollars a only provision of II.The the Constitution that would appear to jurisdiction n (Art. VI, 12) sec. us'with reads: “In cases . . . state officer a party.” How-
ever, we construed words officer” the “state official officers whose duties such are coextensive with the as State, excluding those officers whose the functions of boundaries Ingram, townships. rel. ex v. to counties and confined are 229, 37; Dillon, v. rel. Mo. 1141, 298 S. W. State ex 410;W. Spencer, 206, 91 Mo. State 417; S. rel. ex State Higgins, 325, 636;W. State ex rel. 36 S. 135 Mo. Bus, Blake, Milling 423; Co. Dahne-Walker 410, Hardin, 438; Nickelson v. 23, 242 Mo. Hoffman, 667, 288 S. ex rel. v. State 198, analogy and By Offutt, 9 W. .officer a state is not a that is evident precedent Constitution, VI. of 12. Article meaning of Section . thereof. by virtue invest this as to so intended to invoke the III.It 9536, Revised Statutes ground that Section on the of this contention, petition Relative 1919, of said nothing action than further avers the exercise respecting court' judicial pertaining’ its lawfullv discretion 1919, S.- R. by Section granted authority or the function illegal malicious, action arbitrary fraudulent, corrupt, using its thereof, sitting as justices defendants of said 192- oppress únjustly illegally deprive plaintiff forms'to
n just and reasonable- for his treasurer of said services as county.” trial, plaintiff attempts In his motion for a new constitutiónálity in of the statute this manner. holding That the court
”7. decree of that defendants 1919, legal right' under R. S. provisions of Section had evidence, plaintiff’s salary in the manner shown to reduce effect, being in vio- to declare said section Missouri. Art. Constitution of lation court, "8. That Section R. as construed S- and in violation of Section would be unconstitutional and void '9, Art. of Missouri. the Constitution by the “9. R. That Section case, be unconstitutional the evidence in this would applying through- uniform treasurers would not be salaries .the delegation legislative State, improper also in out power fixing salaries to the Courts. holding pos-
”10. That the court discretion in uncontrolled sessed 1919, uncon- legal R. S.
Treasurer, Section effect held requirement stitutional, meeting it be as not uniform ‘ ”’ operation. its say: subject, this to plaintiff has brief, In his relative to the 1919, is uncon saying R. S. “We are laws, always courts favor the stitutional. long unconstitution its books so and this law has been on the this, long were ality been discovered would doubtless have Thát under recent saying is this: What we are it unconstitutional. *4 respondents’ if unconstitutional it would be decisions this is, county correct, in this ease be contention county fix treas unqualified power to the salaries unlimited and Bailey, 272 and State urers. ” (2d) 713, l. Louis, 2 c. City of St. S. W. upon Revised Stat reading plaintiff’s A attack form, not, either in substance or an 1919, advises that is utes it The contention upon of said section. attack if event the section is. is not that manner, such construc interpreted in a certain is only kind of an tion would render appeal is jurisdiction on this court sufficient to is inherently wholly unconstitutional statute is question so as not raise constitutional every view. Plaintiff did Railroad, t. cour appellate' on this [Nickell to confer (2d) 32 W. argued against judges an action or suit
IY. reality county, action or suit court is hypothesis party real is the interest VI, of the Constitu- tbe tion, appellate which invests this court .with political subdivision other party. Mooneyham, ex rel. Tadlock v. State is opinion, S. W. the writer of the J., ‘party,’ that “The word as used that clause of the WhitJe, Constitution, evidently party means a to the record.” In State Gorsuch, use of Nee v. it was appellate jurisdiction held that this court was without from the judgment of proceeding, brought circuit a mandamus attorney prosecuting compel judges assistant county court to issue to him a in payment salary, back where the amount in dispute $7500, is less than and the is logical not party. By analogy made a reasoning, the Nee point. Gorsuch case that, is It follows party record, party even it was the real interest, appellate The fol lowing support eases Shelley our conclusions: v. Commission for Blind, 688; Village 274 W. Grandview Mc Elroy, Cornish, 298 S. W. State ex rel. v. (2d) 294; (2d) Dietering, of St. Louis v. 19 S. W.
State ex rel. v. McClanahan, S. W. 1059. Appeals. cause is transferred to the St.
Cooley, C., concurs; Westhues, C., sitting.
POSH opinion by Davis, The foregoing All opinion of the court. concur. Appellant. 923. Cropper,
The State v. Jim