People v. Hong
This text of 61 Cal. 376 (People v. Hong) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The defendant attempted to establish an alibi; he himself and his principal witness swearing that he was not at the scene of the assault.
The affidavit of McFadden, used on the motion for a new trial, if it be considered as averring that defendant was not present when the prosecuting witness was beaten, is merely cumulative evidence. But the affidavit does not distinctly state that defendant took no part in the assault. McFadden says; “ Two Chinamen came behind Lee Wing (prosecutor), one pulled him back, and the other struck him.” Further; “Affiant is positive Chin Ah Hong is not the man who struck Lee Wing.”
If both took part in the assault, it is immaterial whether defendant “ pulled him back” or struck him.
Judgment and order affirmed.
Morrison, C. J., and Boss, Sharpstein, Myriok, McKee, and Thornton, JJ., concurred.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
61 Cal. 376, 1882 Cal. LEXIS 626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hong-cal-1882.