People v. Singh

MARKS, J.

Appellants, together with the defendants who have not appealed, were charged in two separate indictments with conspiring to violate the Alien Land Law. The cases were tried together, the appellants convicted and judgments pronounced upon them. They are here on appeal from the judgments and from the orders denying their motions for new trial.

The eases were tried before the decision of

Morrison

v.

People of the State of California,

291 U. S. 82 [54 Sup. Ct. 281, 78 L. Ed. 664], The attorney-general concedes that under authority of that case the judgments and orders denying motions for new trial must be reversed.

Under authority of section 1252 of the Penal Code, the attorney-general has requested us to pass upon two questions that become important in the event of a second trial. These questions are: 1. Was the contract between the California-Nevada Farming Company and J. Labh Singh a contract of employment at a fixed wage, or a cropping contract? 2. Did the trial court err in refusing to permit the testimony of a defendant given before the grand jury to be introduced in evidence at the trial?

Appellants object to our answering the first question. They assert that as section 1252 of the Penal Code provides that the attorney-general may ask the appellate court to “pass upon all rulings of the trial court to the state”,'and that since the ruling of the trial court in holding the contract in question a cropping contract was in favor of the state, we are not required to answer the" question. The soundness of this argument must be admitted.

However, we have examined the contract, and the cases .cited, and have no hesitation in saying that we do not question the correctness of this ruling of the trial judge.

The correct general rule governing the admissibility, as primary evidence, of testimony of a defendant given before

[731]

a grand jury is stated in