In Re Horr

171 P. 801, 177 Cal. 721, 1918 Cal. LEXIS 671
California Supreme Court·Decided March 14, 1918·No. Crim. No. 2148.·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

In our opinion the petition does not show any good ground for the issuance of either a writ of habeas corpus or a writ ofcertiorari.

To our minds the ordinance of the city and county of San Francisco here involved is not violative of any provision of *Page 722 either state or federal constitution, and is a valid enactment. The complaint in the police court stated facts sufficiently showing a public offense in view of the provisions of said ordinance. The claim that the police court erred in refusing to grant a transfer to another department of that court because of the alleged bias and prejudice of the police judge is not a matter going to the jurisdiction of the court and cannot be considered on this application. The claim that the evidence given on the trial was not sufficient to prove the charge is also a matter not available to petitioner on such an application as this, and the same appears to be true as to all other claims made in support of the application.

The application is denied.

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

In Re Horr, 171 P. 801, 177 Cal. 721, 1918 Cal. LEXIS 671 (Cal. 1918).

171 P. 801 (In Re Horr) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Bell
122 P.2d 22 (California Supreme Court, 1942)
In Re Coon
112 P.2d 767 (California Court of Appeal, 1941)
In Re Moffett
64 P.2d 1190 (California Court of Appeal, 1937)
In Re Gutierrez
36 P.2d 712 (California Court of Appeal, 1934)
In Re Cutler
1 Cal. App. 2d 273 (California Court of Appeal, 1934)
In Re Martin
22 P.2d 269 (California Court of Appeal, 1933)
In Re Hall
263 P. 295 (California Court of Appeal, 1927)
In Re Trauger
262 P. 780 (California Court of Appeal, 1927)
State ex rel. Wilberg v. McNaughton
199 N.W. 103 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1924)