The exercise of that control is limited to cases in which the inferior court is acting without its jurisdiction, or is acting erroneously within its jurisdiction, with the result that irreparable injury will occur and there exists no adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise. Evans v. Humphrey, 281 Ky. 254, 135 S.W.2d 915; Cadden v. Smith, Ky., 264 S.W.2d 71; Thompson v. Wood, Ky., 277 S.W.2d 472. The Louisville Police Court has jurisdiction of all penal and misdemeanor cases where the punishment is limited to a fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment not exceeding twelve months, or both. Petit larceny is punishable by imprisonment of one to twelve months.

Petitioners have not cited a case in which this Court has prohibited a circuit court from acting on the ground presented here. The principles relating to the exercise of the power of this Court under Kentucky Constitution Section 110 have been thoroughly discussed in many cases. Evans v. Humphrey, 281 Ky. 254, 135 S.W.2d 915; Thompson v. Wood, Ky., 277 S.W.2d 472; Childers v. Stephenson, Ky., 320 S.W.2d 797. Great and irreparable injury such as will afford a proper basis for the exercise of this Court's power under Kentucky Constitution Section 110 has been defined in Schaetzley v. Wright, Ky., 271 S.W.2d 885, 886, as follows:

This original proceeding seeks extraordinary relief, which is only granted by this Court under unusual circumstances where it is apparent that a great injustice and irreparable injury will result to an applicant who has no adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise. Thompson v. Wood, Ky., 277 S.W.2d 472. The petition suggests lack of jurisdiction in the Estill Circuit Court, and alleges that the remedy by appeal might not be adequate. It seems clear the Estill Circuit Court had jurisdiction of this proceeding, and it also seems clear the question now raised can be reviewed on appeal, and that such remedy is adequate. While petitioners might be saved inconvenience and expense if we undertook at this stage of the proceeding to decide whether or not respondent has committed error, such considerations are not sufficient to warrant the extraordinary relief requested.

The familiar bases for granting prohibition have been discussed fully. Evans v. Humphrey, 281 Ky. 254, 135 S.W.2d 915; Thompson v. Wood, Ky., 277 S.W.2d 472; Murphy v. Thomas, Ky., 296 S.W.2d 469. The use of the writ of prohibition against a judge is a drastic and extraordinary remedy within the discretion of the Court and is reserved for "really extraordinary causes." Harris Coal Corporation v. Cornett, Ky., 298 S.W.2d 320; Ex parte Collett, 337 U.S. 55, 69 S.Ct. 944, 953, 959, 93 L.Ed. 1207, 10 A.L.R.2d 921. The original jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked as a substitute for appeal where no appeal lies. Moore v. Smith, Ky., 307 S.W.2d 191. The principles mentioned were recognized in Grantz v. Grauman, Ky., 302 S.W.2d 364, a case similar to the present case, when a petition for prohibition was considered because of the important constitutional question involved, but relief was denied.

Both this Court and the lower court recognized that the judgments of conviction were not subject to collateral attack since they were not void. In two recent cases Thompson v. Wood, Ky., 277 S.W.2d 472, and Walters v. Fowler, Ky., 280 S.W.2d 523, this Court refused to grant relief by prohibition in similar situations. I see no reason to violate our rule and grant any relief herein, and for this reason I respectfully dissent.

Therefore, petitioner has failed to establish that this is the exceptional, extraordinary, or unusual case which justifies the use of the writ of prohibition. Thompson v. Wood, Ky., 277 S.W.2d 472; Murphy v. Thomas, Ky., 296 S.W.2d 469. The writs of mandamus and prohibition are denied.

A fine could have been assessed which was less than $20 and petitioner could thus be denied the right to appeal, or the fine could have amounted to more than $20, thus, affording an adequate amount for appeal, but until the facts are ascertained, the action of the court should not be anticipated. We have indicated that a fine less than $20 is not sufficient to cause irreparable injury in view of the fact that the legislature considered such a fine so trivial that it did not provide for an appeal in these cases to the circuit court, Thompson v. Wood, Ky., 277 S.W.2d 472, and, if the fine is more than $20, the petitioner would have an adequate remedy by appeal. The rules governing situations of this nature were well expressed in the Thompson case, where it was said: "From a long line of cases it seems now well settled in this state that writs of prohibition will issue from this Court to prohibit inferior courts in all cases where, (1) they are threatening to proceed or are proceeding in a matter where they have no jurisdiction and there is no remedy through an application to an intermediate court, and (2) where they, although having jurisdiction, are exercising or about to exercise it erroneously and great injustice and irreparable injury would result to applicant if they should do so, and there exists no other adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise.

None of the errors complained of rendered the judgment void. We feel that the recent ruling in Thompson v. Wood, Ky., 277 S.W.2d 472, decided March 4, 1955, rehearing denied April 29, 1955, is controlling. It was there held that the imposition and collection of a fine for $10 and the costs by a court of competent jurisdiction was not such great injustice or great and irreparable injury as would justify the use of the writ of prohibition. It is conceded in the instant case that the inferior court was proceeding within its jurisdiction. This result may seem harsh to the petitioner, and we are inclined to feel sympathetically toward him.