In Re Lund

California Court of Appeal

In Re Lund

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

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMarch 30, 1934

DocketDocket No. 2504.

StatusPublished

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

Pincite

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 P.2d 221, 137 Cal. App. 616, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 939, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-lund-calctapp-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack