¶1 We do not feel at liberty to decide the question mainly discussed in the very elaborate and able argument of Judge Cantwell; that is, has the General Assembly power to abolish a Special Court established in pursuance of a provision of tire Constitution ? For the reason that a preliminary question is decisive of the case, the Court will never go out of the way, and unnecessarily pass upon a power which the General Assembly has assumed to exercise.
¶2 “ The General Assembly shall provide for the establishment of Special Courts, for the trials of misdemeanors in cities and towns, when the same may be necessary.” Constitution, Art. 4, Sec. 19.
¶3 Under this provision, a Special Court was established in the ©ity of Wilmington, Acts of 1868. Rut its jurisdiction could! only extend to misdemeanors, and in order to embrace casesl of larceny — by act 1869-70, ch. 37 — it is enacted, “That al larceny committed within the limits of the city of Wilmington,! where the thing stolen is not of greater value than $25, shalll be a misdemeanor, not a felony.” I
¶4 This act is repealed by act of 1871, and the effect is to exclude! larceny from the jurisdiction of the Special Court. I
¶5 There can be no question, that the General Assembly had the same power to repeal the act of 1869’-70, ch. 37, as tc pass it.
¶6 It follows that the Special Court established for the city o Wilmington, has no longer any jurisdiction to try a persor ©barged with the offence of larceny.
¶7 There is error. This will be enforced, to the end, that the judgment of the Special Court be reversed and judgment b< entered in favor of the defendant.