People, Terry v. Sup Ct, San Bernardino

California Court of Appeal

People, Terry v. Sup Ct, San Bernardino

234 P. 338, 71 Cal. App. 1, 1925 Cal. App. LEXIS 471

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJanuary 29, 1925

DocketDocket No. 4817.

StatusPublished

This text of 234 P. 338 (People, Terry v. Sup Ct, San Bernardino) 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

People, Terry v. Sup Ct, San Bernardino, 234 P. 338, 71 Cal. App. 1, 1925 Cal. App. LEXIS 471 (Cal. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

CRAIG, J.

Petition for writ of prohibition.

The petitioner A. W. Terry was charged by complaint filed in the justice’s court of San Bernardino township with having accepted a bribe, and was subsequently indicted by the grand jury of 'San Bernardino County for the same offense. *2 He caused to be made, in the superior court of said county, a motion for trial before a judge other than the respondent; this motion was based upon certain affidavits which petitioner contended set forth facts showing bias and prejudice of the trial judge against him. The motion was denied, and petitioner thereupon filed in this court a petition for writ of prohibition against the respondent trying the ease, and praying that the latter be directed to transfer the same to another department or to call in another judge for that purpose.

It appears that the complaint and indictment above mentioned have both been dismissed, and that no charges are pending against the petitioner in the premises. The proceedings before this court therefore seek the determination of an abstract question which does not arise upon any existing facts or rights, and is moot. It follows that the petition must be dismissed, and it is so ordered. (Munger’s Laundry Co. v. Rankin, 8 Cal. App. 448 [97 Pac. 95].)

Finlayson, P. J., and Works, J., concurred.

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

CRAIG, J.

Petition for writ of prohibition.

The petitioner A. W. Terry was charged by complaint filed in the justice’s court of San Bernardino township with having accepted a bribe, and was subsequently indicted by the grand jury of 'San Bernardino County for the same offense. *2 He caused to be made, in the superior court of said county, a motion for trial before a judge other than the respondent; this motion was based upon certain affidavits which petitioner contended set forth facts showing bias and prejudice of the trial judge against him. The motion was denied, and petitioner thereupon filed in this court a petition for writ of prohibition against the respondent trying the ease, and praying that the latter be directed to transfer the same to another department or to call in another judge for that purpose.

It appears that the complaint and indictment above mentioned have both been dismissed, and that no charges are pending against the petitioner in the premises. The proceedings before this court therefore seek the determination of an abstract question which does not arise upon any existing facts or rights, and is moot. It follows that the petition must be dismissed, and it is so ordered. (Munger’s Laundry Co. v. Rankin, 8 Cal. App. 448 [97 Pac. 95].)

Finlayson, P. J., and Works, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 P. 338, 71 Cal. App. 1, 1925 Cal. App. LEXIS 471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-terry-v-sup-ct-san-bernardino-calctapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack