Show APPEALS FROM JUSTICES held Tint ThaI or of Is s Not Nit Alway Fisel lI and holds lIob that tinder in lre ourt oIl rt Lucks uth The ot of Lat for tor tl a Writ of and Dd order tn ti show how cause callie directed against HEa bleary U H judge jUde of Ib the Second district court couN and ana A J Anderson was wa denied by the Supreme Court toda today The questions Involved In this c case were Hu bias th the Supreme Court tinte to review by writ of certiorari the decision ot of district courts courtl In cues ap appealed appealed pealed front the justices ot of tb the peace the Ibl former courts have bave their jurisdictIon Itt In such c A And did the district court in III the case eaM at la law exceed It jurisdiction by overrulIng the motion to dismiss the appeal and In proceeding to try the case CAIe The Supreme Court holds that It may mar marby by certiorari review tilt the decisions md nIl Judgment rendered by district courts in n cue case appealed trots from the justIces of the pete peace when the dIstrict courts ex cx exceed cacti their jurIsdictIon sad and fall cn to al do substantial justice The court further finds that the district did not exceed It Its I jurisdiction In the trial ot of the cue of oC Hansen v vs Anderson and therefore grants ranta the motion to quash the writ TIle The opinIon wu was by District Judge Judg McCarty Justice Chief Justice Bench Bartch dissents and nd holds holda that the writ In the cue case should hue have been on the ground that the Supreme Court section 1 article 0 ot of the State Constitution lacks authority to review lither either by certiorari or appeal a decision ot of a district court rendered In gny II case apo ap appealed pealed to that court from a justIce of lh the peace Chief Justice Bartch contend that such hat has been the uni uniform uniform form holding ot of th Supreme Court since tb the adoption Of the |