STiTB V, PORT. 123 �tîes and încongruities supposed to be in the way of trying in the circuit court an indictment for an alleged offence against the peace and dignity of a state, if they -were real, would be for the consideration of congress. But they are unreal." �Ail this applies to proceedings in criminal practice so re- moved, no matter at what stage of the prosecution the removal may be made. My conclusion is, therefore, that •when this petition for removal was filed, on July 13th, a criminal prosecution had been commeneed against the de- fendants. But it is insisted that, if there was a criminal prosecution commeneed, it was not commeneed in a court of the state. The contention is that the proceedings of John B. Suttles, Jr., justice of the peace, in taking the affidavit of Mary E. Jones, and filing it, and issuing his warrant of ar- rest thereon, were not proceedings in a court. It is obvions to remark that, if a criminal prosecution had been commeneed at ail, it must necessarily have been commeneed in a court. The constitution of Georgia, art. 6, § 1, declares : "The judi- cial powers of this state shall be vested in the supreme court, superior courts, courts of ordinary, and justices of the peace," etc. �A justice of the peace is, therefore, an ofBcer, olothed with judicial powers, when acting in his judicial capacity, and within his jurisdiction he is, to ail intent and purposes, a court. In receiving the affidavit of Mary E. Jones, and deciding that it sufficiently charged a crime against the laws of the state and authorized the issuance of a warrant, he acted judicially. His proceedings in the matteir were the proceedings of a court, having jurisdiction to do everytliing that was done. By the ■ Code of Georgia a justice of the peace, while sitting as a committing magistrate, is recognized as a court. Section 4730 declares : "Anyjudge * * * or justice of the peaoe may hold a court of inquiry to examine into any accusation against any person legally arrested and brought before him." �This prosecution had progressed so far before the filing of the petition for removal that the very next step would have been the holding of a court of inquiry by the justice of the Deace. The prosecution was pending before him for that ����
