10 O.S. 1961 § 101[ 10-101] et seq. Inasmuch as proceedings for adjudication of dependency are statutory in character and within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the county court, it follows that the Legislature is free from the restraints of Art. VII, Sec. 15, in regulating the manner and mode of appeals by which they are brought to a higher court. See in this connection Wilson v. State, 73 Okla. 227, 175 P. 829; Gray v. McKnight, 50 Okla. 73, 150 P. 1046. It is next asserted by appellees that the terms of 10 O.S. 1961 § 108[ 10-108], do not apply to the present case but only to those situations where the county court enters an "order specifying conduct to be followed by such parent, guardian or other person having custody of the child."
The complaint should aver all the facts necessary to sustain the proceeding: 5 Cyc. 657-8; 7 Am.Jur. 694, Sec. 104; 10 C.J. 165, Sec. 77; 7 C.J. 967, Sec. 57. The complaint must allege that the mother is a resident of the county: Jones v. State, 4 P.2d 85; Cummins v. State, 148 P. 137; Burnham v. State et al., 266 P. 781; Clark v. State, 289 P. 315; Wilson v. State, 175 P. 829; Tiger v. State, 19 P.2d 568. Jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine the subject- matter of the controversy: Myers v. Berry, 41 P. 580 (Okla.). POINTS OF COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT IN ERROR
Respondents urge that the jurisdictional limitation of $1,000 applies here for the reason that the forfeiture statute, above, shows no disposition on the part of the Legislature to extend the jurisdiction as by the Constitution authorized. They concede that the limitation does not apply in those cases where the Legislature, by valid act, has vested exclusive jurisdiction in the county court, but insist that where, as here, the county court has concurrent jurisdiction with the district court, the limitation does apply. Wilson v. State, 73 Okla. 227, 175 P. 829; Bennett v. State, 147 Okla. 14, 294 P. 149. The above contention, as a general proposition, finds support in the statement of the court in the latter case, as follows:
We have examined the motion for new trial, the affidavit in support thereof, and the record in connection therewith, and are of the opinion that the court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial. Wilson v. State, 73 Okla. 227, 175 P. 829; Bond v. State, 131 Okla. 104, 267 P. 850; Magnolia Pet. Co. v. McDonald, 168 Okla. 255, 32 P.2d 909; Reviere v. Payne, 166 Okla. 150, 26 P.2d 734; Holly v. Holly, 174 Okla. 626, 51 P.2d 527; Abrams v. Neal, 182 Okla. 560, 78 P.2d 1049; Belford v. Allen, 183 Okla. 256, 80 P.2d 671. There is a narration of the testimony of the physician who attended the prosecutrix at the birth of the twins.
This contention was untenable. Bennett v. State, 147 Okla. 14, 294 P. 149; Wilson v. State, 73 Okla. 227, 175 P. 829. The regular briefs authorized by the rules of this court were completed and the time for filing additional briefs, except by leave of court had expired.
The county court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action. Wilson v. State, 73 Okla. 227, 175 P. 829. Under section 10, art. 7, of the Constitution, district courts are given original jurisdiction in civil cases except where exclusive jurisdiction is, by the Constitution or by law, conferred on some other court. Under section 12, art. 7, of the Constitution, the county court is given concurrent jurisdiction with the district court in civil cases in any amount not exceeding $1,000, until otherwise provided by law. As stated in Wilson v. State, supra, the act in question confers exclusive jurisdiction on the county court in this class of cases, and that grant of power to the county court is authorized by sections 10 and 12, art. 7, supra.
This authority unquestionably announces the correct rule, and such proceedings are as thoroughly special or statutory in Oklahoma as the Kansas Supreme Court declares such proceedings to be in that state. Wilson v. State, 73 Okla. 227, 175 P. 829. Section 8059, C. O. S. 1921, under which this proceeding was instituted, reads as follows:
" To the same effect are the following cases: Salt Lake Inv. Co. v. Stoutt (Utah) 180 P. 182; Manufacturers' Finance Co. v. Sherman, 99 Okla. 295, 227 P. 451; Wilson v. State, 73 Okla. 227, 175 P. 829; Vickers v. Philip Carey Co., 49 Okla. 231, 151 P. 1023; Ellis v. Mid-Continent Oil Gas Co., 65 Okla. 124, 165 P. 177. So far as we can discover, there is no evidence in this case of any diligence to procure the presence of these witnesses at the trial.
And especially is this true where the defendant did not request that the court instruct upon this issue. Wilson v. State, 73 Okla. 227, 175 P. 829. Finding no reversible error in the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
See, also, the case of Cummins v. State, 46 Okla. 51, 148 P. 137, which reaffirms the principle decided in the case quoted from above. In the case of Wilson v. State, 73 Okla. 227, 175 P. 829, it was held that there was no question that the complaint in that case was defective, in that it failed to allege the residence of the mother, but that the defendant waived his right to objection to the sufficiency of the complaint for the reason he did not challenge the sufficiency of the complaint by demurrer or object to the introduction of evidence thereunder as to the residence of the mother, which, in effect, decided that if a timely demurrer or objection to the evidence had been made, as was done in this case, it would have been error for the court to overrule the demurrer and overrule said objections. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the court committed reversible error in not sustaining the demurrer of the defendant to the sufficiency of the information and in overruling the objections to the offer of evidence as to the residence of the mother, and his demurrer to the sufficiency of the evidence at the close of the evidence on part of the plaintiff.