In re Latourell

California Court of Appeal

In re Latourell

112 Cal. App. 186

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedFebruary 25, 1931

DocketCrim. No. 1622

StatusPublished

This text of 112 Cal. App. 186 (In re Latourell) 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 Latourell, 112 Cal. App. 186 (Cal. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

An application for a writ of habeas cor pus. The petitioner is charged by a complaint filed in the Municipal Court of the City and County of San Francisco with a misdemeanor, to wit: vagrancy. The form of the complaint is not questioned, but section 647 of the Penal Code defining vagrancy, by its terms, is not operative against a “California Indian”, and it is alleged in the petition for this writ that petitioner “is an Indian of the Yakima Tribe, of Yakima, Washington”. He contends, therefore, that the municipal court is without jurisdiction to try him for the offense of vagrancy. Admittedly, however, the municipal court has jurisdiction in vagrancy cases, and therefore the question of whether or not petitioner is of the race which exempts him from the operation of the vagrancy law manifestly is one of fact which must be determined upon trial of the action. It is not a proper subject of inquiry before this court in a proceeding on habeas corpus. The application is therefore denied.

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

THE COURT.

An application for a writ of habeas cor pus. The petitioner is charged by a complaint filed in the Municipal Court of the City and County of San Francisco with a misdemeanor, to wit: vagrancy. The form of the complaint is not questioned, but section 647 of the Penal Code defining vagrancy, by its terms, is not operative against a “California Indian”, and it is alleged in the petition for this writ that petitioner “is an Indian of the Yakima Tribe, of Yakima, Washington”. He contends, therefore, that the municipal court is without jurisdiction to try him for the offense of vagrancy. Admittedly, however, the municipal court has jurisdiction in vagrancy cases, and therefore the question of whether or not petitioner is of the race which exempts him from the operation of the vagrancy law manifestly is one of fact which must be determined upon trial of the action. It is not a proper subject of inquiry before this court in a proceeding on habeas corpus. The application is therefore denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 Cal. App. 186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-latourell-calctapp-1931.