In re Conner

Crockett, J., delivered the.opinion of the Court:

The only question for decision in this case is whether or not, under the naturalization laws of the United States and the laws and Constitution of this State, the County Courts of this State have power to issue papers of naturalization. The third section of the Act of Congress of April 14, 1802, confers power upon “every Court of Record in any individual State having common laio jurisdiction, and a seal and clerk or prothonotary. ” No • one will deny that our County Courts are Courts of record, having seals and clerks. The only remaining question, therefore, is whether they have “common law jurisdiction” in the sense in which that term is employed in the Act of • Congress.

The power to issue naturalization papers is expressly conferred upon the County Courts by Section 8, Article VI, of the Constitution, as amended in 1882 ; and the next succeeding section confers upon them “original jurisdiction of actions of forcible entry and detainer, of proceedings in insolvency, of actions to prevent or abate a nuisance, and of all such special cases and proceedings as are not otherwise provided for; and also such criminal jurisdiction as the Legislature may prescribe; they shall also have r-p-pellate jurisdiction in all cases arising in Courts held by Justices of the Peace and Recorders.”

Section 366 of the Practice Act provides that on an appeal to the County Court, unless the appeal be on questions of [100]law alone, “the action shall be tried anew in the County Court, and either party may, on such trial, demand a jury.”

Aside from the express power conferred by the Constitution on the County Courts to issue papers of naturalization, it is not difficult to demonstrate that they have “ common law jurisdiction,” within the true intent of the Act of Congress. The term “common law jurisdiction” is capable of no other meaning than jurisdiction to try and decide causes which were cognizable by the Courts of law, under what is known as the common law of England. Our judicial system having been modelled chiefly after that of England, we have adopted the nomenclature which prevailed in her Courts. Hence, when we speak through our statutes and Courts of common law actions, proceedings at common law and common law jurisdiction, we mean such actions, proceedings and jurisdiction as appertained to the common law of England, as administered through her Courts. Amongst these were actions to prevent or abate a nuisance. All the authorities agree that to maintain a nuisance was an offense at common law, which might be abated by proceedings in the Courts which administered that system of jurisprudence in England. (7 Bacon’s Abt. 223. Title Nuisances.)