In Re Stanridge

California Court of Appeal Oct 6, 1937 No. Civ. No. 1577Published

Before: Thompson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, finding that the magistrate had sufficient evidence of probable cause to hold the petitioner for trial and that the petitioner was not entitled to the writ because his custody was voluntary. The court also denied the motion to hold the petitioner's attorney in contempt.

Issues

Did the committing magistrate exceed his jurisdiction in holding the petitioner for trial for resisting a public officer?
Is a petitioner entitled to a writ of habeas corpus when they have voluntarily surrendered to custody for the purpose of procuring the writ?

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The evidence which was adduced at the preliminary hearing adequately discloses probable cause to believe that the accused person is guilty of resisting a public officer in the discharge of his duties”

“One who has voluntarily surrendered himself for the purpose of procuring a writ of habeas corpus is not entitled to the writ.”

THOMPSON, J.

By means of a writ of

habeas corpus

the petitioner seeks to be released from custody on the ground that the committing magistrate exceeded his jurisdiction in holding him for trial in the superior court after a preliminary examination upon a charge of resisting a public officer in the discharge of his duties contrary to the provisions of section 148 of the Penal Code. It is contended the preliminary examination discloses no evidence that the petitioner was . aware of the fact that the persons were public officers who were threatened with bodily injuries if they attempted to enforce an ordinance of Stanislaus County which requires the vaccination of dairy cattle.

There is also a motion which was presented at the same time to adjudge the attorney for the petitioner guilty of

[97]

contempt for presenting and procuring the preliminary order for the writ of

habeas corpus

without disclosing the fact that the petitioner was not then in actual custody.

There is no merit in the petition for a writ of

habeas corpus.

The evidence which was adduced at the preliminary hearing adequately discloses probable cause to believe that the accused person is guilty of resisting a public officer in the discharge of his duties by threatening him with violence and bodily harm if he attempted to enforce the Stanislaus ordinance to vaccinate the dairy cattle of one John Borba, and that the accused person then knew the threatened person was a public peace officer.

Stanislaus County adopted an ordinance requiring the testing and vaccination of dairy cattle within that county. That ordinance has been declared valid.

(Stanislaus County Dairymen’s Protective Assn.

County of Stanislaus,

8 Cal. (2d) 378 [65 Pac. (2d) 1305].) John Borba owns a herd of dairy cattle which was kept on a ranch near Crows Landing in Stanislaus County. He opposed the inspection and vaccination of his cattle by the officers. On May 3, 1937, S. R. Briggs, a deputy sheriff of Stanislaus County, and five other deputies, accompanied the veterinarians to the ranch of Mr. Borba with the object of testing his cattle pursuant to the ordinance. When they arrived they found some 300 persons assembled on the ranch. Among them was this petitioner, who did not reside in Stanislaus County, but came from Hilmar in Merced County. He stood by the side of Mr. Borba and assumed to speak for him. There is substantial evidence that he heard the conversation of the officer with Borba, and must have known he was an officer who was then attempting to discharge his duties as a deputy sheriff. Regarding that subject the transcript of the preliminary examination consisting of 160 pages discloses the following evidence given by Mr. Briggs:

In Re Stanridge

AI Brief

THOMPSON, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief