In Re Lund

California Court of Appeal

In Re Lund

31 P.2d 221, 137 Cal. App. 616, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 939

California Court of Appeal·Decided March 30, 1934·No. Docket No. 2504.·Published

Opinion

CRAIG-, J.

By this application for a writ of habeas corpus the petitioner asserts that he is illegally imprisoned by the chief of police of the city of Los Angeles under conviction in the municipal court of that city of having committed vagrancy, a misdemeanor.

There is ample evidence in the record to sustain the charge upon which petitioner was convicted. It is only necessary that there be proof of a single act of vagrancy. (People v. Phelps, 189 App. Div. 775 [179 N. Y. Supp. 289] ; State v. Gardner, 174 Iowa, 748 [156 N. W. 747, 14 A. L. R. 1498, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 239, L. R. A. 1916D, 767].) In this instance it appears that the following facts pertain to petitioner’s conduct in the city of Los Angeles: That he *617 was seen on the streets many times by witnesses; that on several occasions he was in the company of a known prostitute; that at one time he was drunk in an automobile, and that he was at all times idle and without means of support other than in a certain illegal trade known as “hijacking”, and there is testimony that he was a “hijacker”.

Under these circumstances it is unnecessary and unprofitable to consider or decide certain legal questions which petitioner urges.

The writ is discharged.

Stephens, P. J., and Archbald J., pro tem., concurred

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

CRAIG-, J.

By this application for a writ of habeas corpus the petitioner asserts that he is illegally imprisoned by the chief of police of the city of Los Angeles under conviction in the municipal court of that city of having committed vagrancy, a misdemeanor.

There is ample evidence in the record to sustain the charge upon which petitioner was convicted. It is only necessary that there be proof of a single act of vagrancy. (People v. Phelps, 189 App. Div. 775 [179 N. Y. Supp. 289] ; State v. Gardner, 174 Iowa, 748 [156 N. W. 747, 14 A. L. R. 1498, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 239, L. R. A. 1916D, 767].) In this instance it appears that the following facts pertain to petitioner’s conduct in the city of Los Angeles: That he *617 was seen on the streets many times by witnesses; that on several occasions he was in the company of a known prostitute; that at one time he was drunk in an automobile, and that he was at all times idle and without means of support other than in a certain illegal trade known as “hijacking”, and there is testimony that he was a “hijacker”.

Under these circumstances it is unnecessary and unprofitable to consider or decide certain legal questions which petitioner urges.

The writ is discharged.

Stephens, P. J., and Archbald J., pro tem., concurred

In Re Lund, 31 P.2d 221, 137 Cal. App. 616, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 939 (Cal. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

31 P.2d 221 (In Re Lund) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related