In Re Chase

California Court of Appeal Dec 28, 1931 No. Docket No. 2121.Published

Before: Conrey

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the complaint sufficiently alleged a public offense under Penal Code section 318, as the phrase 'anchored off the coast' is capable of being understood as referring to a place within the state's territorial jurisdiction.

Issues

Whether the complaint failed to state a public offense, thereby depriving the municipal court of jurisdiction.
Whether the allegation that a ship was 'anchored off the coast' sufficiently places the alleged gambling activity within the state's jurisdiction.

Disposition. remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The phrase is capable of being understood as referring to a place within the territorial jurisdiction of the state, and ordinarily would be so understood.”

“For the foregoing reasons we are of the opinion that the facts alleged in the complaint were sufficient to state a public offense, of which the municipal court had jurisdiction.”

CONREY, P. J.

By complaint filed in the municipal court of the city of Long Beach it was charged that on the twenty-ninth day of November, 1930, in the city of Long Beach, county of Los Angeles, state of California, a misdemeanor was committed by Clarence R. Chase, Clifford Casey and other persons named, who “then and there wilfully and unlawfully, by invitation and/or device, did prevail upon persons to visit a place kept for the purpose of gambling, to-wit, the ‘Johanna Smith’, a ship anchored off the coast of the city of Long Beach, in violation of section 318 of the Penal Code of the State of California”. In due course of procedure, Chase and Casey were convicted. Each of the defendants was fined in the sum of $100, with an alternative of imprisonment. At the time of filing their application for writ of

habeas corpus

in this court, and until their release upon bail pending this proceeding, petitioners were imprisoned for nonpayment of said fine.

It is contended by petitioners that the commitment, under which they are held in custody, is void by reason of the fact that the municipal court was without jurisdiction to try them under said complaint or to render any judgment of conviction thereon. Petitioners contend that, for stated reasons, the complaint against them did not state facts sufficient to constitute a public offense or cause of action against them or either of them. Section 318 of the Penal Code reads

[434]

as follows: “Whoever, through invitation or device, prevails upon any person to visit any room, building, or other places kept for the purpose of gambling or prostitution, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be confined in the county jail not exceeding six months, or fined not exceeding five hundred dollars, or be punished by both such fine and imprisonment.”

It appears to be conceded that, if the complaint in the action fails to state a public offense, the court was without jurisdiction, and

habeas corpus

is the appropriate remedy.

(Ex parte Greenall,

In Re Chase

AI Brief

CONREY, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief