Ex parte Granice

California Supreme Court

Ex parte Granice

51 Cal. 375, 1876 Cal. LEXIS 55

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1876

DocketNo. 10,208

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 51 Cal. 375 (Ex parte Granice) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ex parte Granice, 51 Cal. 375, 1876 Cal. LEXIS 55 (Cal. 1876).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court, Wallace, C. J.:

The order under which the prisoner is detained in custody directs that he be held to answer to any indictment found against him for the murder of Edward Madden; the order [376]*376was made by the District Court, the judge of which court is a magistrate vested with authority to hold accused persons to answer (Penal Code, Secs. 808-874), and was entered after hearing the evidence touching the alleged killing of Madden by the prisoner. Whether the order was irregularly entered, was erroneous, or what defense or advantage it may possibly afford the prisoner, should he be again put upon his trial for the killing of Madden, are questions which it is not the office of a writ of habeas corpus to present for our consideration. “The writ of habeas corpus,” as well observed here in Ex parte McCullough, “ has not been given for the purpose of reviewing judgments or orders made by a court or judge, or officer acting within their jurisdiction. To put it to such a use ivould be to convert it into a writ of error,” etc. (35 Cal. 100.)

It results that the prisoner must be remanded, and it is so ordered.

Mr. Justice Cbockett did not express an opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By the Court, Wallace, C. J.:

The order under which the prisoner is detained in custody directs that he be held to answer to any indictment found against him for the murder of Edward Madden; the order [376]*376was made by the District Court, the judge of which court is a magistrate vested with authority to hold accused persons to answer (Penal Code, Secs. 808-874), and was entered after hearing the evidence touching the alleged killing of Madden by the prisoner. Whether the order was irregularly entered, was erroneous, or what defense or advantage it may possibly afford the prisoner, should he be again put upon his trial for the killing of Madden, are questions which it is not the office of a writ of habeas corpus to present for our consideration. “The writ of habeas corpus,” as well observed here in Ex parte McCullough, “ has not been given for the purpose of reviewing judgments or orders made by a court or judge, or officer acting within their jurisdiction. To put it to such a use ivould be to convert it into a writ of error,” etc. (35 Cal. 100.)

It results that the prisoner must be remanded, and it is so ordered.

Mr. Justice Cbockett did not express an opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 Cal. 375, 1876 Cal. LEXIS 55, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-granice-cal-1876.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack