In Re Henderson

California Court of Appeal

In Re Henderson

23 P.2d 780, 133 Cal. App. 191, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 532

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJuly 6, 1933

DocketDocket No. 1755.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 23 P.2d 780 (In Re Henderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Henderson, 23 P.2d 780, 133 Cal. App. 191, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 532 (Cal. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

Petitioner has applied for a writ of habeas corpxis, alleging that he is unlawfully detained and restrained of his liberty by the chief of police of the city and county of San Francisco, under the authority of a warrant of arrest issued out of the municipal court of said city and county upon the filing of a complaint therein on March 18, 1933, charging petitioner with having violated the provisions of a municipal ordinance. The ground urged for the *192 issuance of the writ is that the ordinance is unconstitutional. Neither a copy of the ordinance nor of the complaint is presented as a part of or with the petition, and for that reason the petition is legally insufficient to authorize the issuance of the writ. (In re Crowley, 171 Cal. 58 [151 Pac. 739].)

Moreover, as held in In re Gow, 139 Cal. 242 [73 Pac. 145], when a person accused of violating an ordinance has been allowed to go at large on his own recognizance he will not be permitted to test the validity of his subsequent restraint on habeas corpus, where such restraint is invited and voluntarily submitted to before trial for that purpose only, and his nominal restraint remains such only so long as it is necessary to file a petition and procure an order for the writ. To the same effect is In re Bocci, 84 Cal. App. 269 [257 Pac. 888], In the present case, it appears from the statements made in applying for the writ, that after the criminal proceeding was instituted petitioner was released and has since been at liberty on his own recognizance, and that his present restraint was invited and submitted to voluntarily for the purpose of testing the constitutionality of said ordinance before trial on habeas corpus. Upon that ground, too, therefore, the writ should be denied. It is so ordered.

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

THE COURT.

Petitioner has applied for a writ of habeas corpxis, alleging that he is unlawfully detained and restrained of his liberty by the chief of police of the city and county of San Francisco, under the authority of a warrant of arrest issued out of the municipal court of said city and county upon the filing of a complaint therein on March 18, 1933, charging petitioner with having violated the provisions of a municipal ordinance. The ground urged for the *192 issuance of the writ is that the ordinance is unconstitutional. Neither a copy of the ordinance nor of the complaint is presented as a part of or with the petition, and for that reason the petition is legally insufficient to authorize the issuance of the writ. (In re Crowley, 171 Cal. 58 [151 Pac. 739].)

Moreover, as held in In re Gow, 139 Cal. 242 [73 Pac. 145], when a person accused of violating an ordinance has been allowed to go at large on his own recognizance he will not be permitted to test the validity of his subsequent restraint on habeas corpus, where such restraint is invited and voluntarily submitted to before trial for that purpose only, and his nominal restraint remains such only so long as it is necessary to file a petition and procure an order for the writ. To the same effect is In re Bocci, 84 Cal. App. 269 [257 Pac. 888], In the present case, it appears from the statements made in applying for the writ, that after the criminal proceeding was instituted petitioner was released and has since been at liberty on his own recognizance, and that his present restraint was invited and submitted to voluntarily for the purpose of testing the constitutionality of said ordinance before trial on habeas corpus. Upon that ground, too, therefore, the writ should be denied. It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 P.2d 780, 133 Cal. App. 191, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-henderson-calctapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack