missioners, 24 Mich. 182; People v. Hill, 65 Barb. 171; Farmington River Water Power Co. v. County Commissioners, 112 Mass. 206; Com. v. Winthrop, 10 Mass. 177; Rutland v. Commissioners, 20 Pick. 71.
Upon the theory that the supplemental return contradicts the record entries, and to show the competency of such return for that purpose the case of Blair v. Hamilton, 32 Cal. 50, is relied upon by respondent. That case is based upon Whitney v. Board, 14 Cal. 479, and Lowe v. Alexander, 15 Cal. 300. No other cases are cited. The California statute is identical with our own, so far as the scope of the writ is concerned, though their practice act gives a wider range of investigation under the writ than we have; but that is immaterial. But these cases are hardly authority for the position. In Whitney v. Board and Blair v. Hamilton it was held that the superior court had the right to have before it the evidence on which the inferior tribunal based the conclusion that it had jurisdiction, and that, where this evidence did not establish jurisdiction as matter of law, the action of the inferior tribunal could be set aside. No effort was made in either of those cases to contradict any statement of fact contained in the record by matter resting in parol. In Lowe v. Alexander there was no question on certiorari before the court. An incidental reference was made to the holding in the Whitney case. The learned judge who wrote the opinion in the Whitney case used this language, at page 500: “The provisions of our statute are merely in affirmance of the common law. The nature and effect of the writ remains unchanged. Its functions are neither enlarged nor diminished, and the rules and principles which govern its operation are still the same." Our statute being identical with that of California, of course all the decisions under the common law writ should have proper weight in this state. Many of the cases already cited announce in positive terms that the reviewing court can consider only the record made by the inferior tribunal, which is simply declaring in another form that the record cannot be contradicted. This is specially true of the cases cited from Illinois and Massachusetts. The point is emphasized that the record cannot be contradicted, but the case must be decided
