Criminal Procedure. These statutory provisions existed formerly when there was only one district judge for each judicial district. Under the new redistricting statutory act, there are now two or more judges for each judicial district. Laws 1919, chap. 167. Under this act change of venue may be taken from one judge to another in the same district, or in another district, or from one county to another, or from one district to another, as is now or may hereafter be provided for by law. Laws 1919, § 7, chap. 167. Under the provisions of said article 5, when the petitioner filed a double affidavit directed against the prejudice both of trial judge and of the county and judicial subdivision where the action was pending, it became the duty of the trial judge to order the cause to be removed for trial to some other county or judicial subdivision in this state. (§ 10,766) where the cause complained of did not exist. (§ 10,758), and to request, arrange for, and procure some other judge to preside at the trial of such action, (§ 10,766). It thereupon also became the duty of the judge who was requested by the disqualified judge to preside at the trial of the action, to respond as speedily as might be, and to preside at any trial to which he might be called under the provisions of said article 5. His acts are given the same force and validity as the acts made or done in the judicial district for which he was elected. (§ 10,767). It is plainly evident by simple reference to the statutory provisions, that the order of the trial judge, who was thus disqualified, was at least irregular, and not pursuant to the statutory requisites. The statute specifically requests such disqualified judge to arrange for some other judge to preside at the trial of the action so transferred. In the judicial district to which this case was sent, there are now three district judges. The disqualified judge did not designate which one of the three or what judge should preside. There is manifestly no such designation, expressed or to be implied, as the statute required.
If the parties were not demanding speedy trial, and if the administration of judicial procedure in this state might possibly not be hampered or embarrassed by reason of the proximity of time when the petitioner, as district judge elect, will qualify, these proceedings might then, perhaps, well be remanded to the disqualified judge again for further action. This court has heretofore held that the superintending control of this court over inferior courts was very broad. Ordinarily it will be exercised only in cases of emergency, or when the ends of justice imperatively demand it. The nature and extent of this control is not reflected by the name of the writ that has been used for its exercise. See State ex rel. Red River
