Farraher v. Superior Court (1919) · DecisionDepot

Farraher v. Superior Court

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Dec 13, 1919 No. Civ. No. 3140.Published

Before: Shaw

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a complaint charging the disturbance of a meeting under Penal Code section 403 is insufficient if it fails to allege that the meeting was of a public character, and therefore prohibited the trial court from proceeding with the case.

Issues

Whether a complaint under Penal Code section 403 must allege that the disturbed meeting was of a public character.
Whether prohibition is an appropriate remedy to restrain a trial court from proceeding with a trial based on an insufficient complaint.

Disposition. Peremptory writ of prohibition granted.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the section of the code must be construed as not applicable to one who disturbs an assembly of meeting, unless it further appears that such meeting or assembly was of a public character.”

“since the subject of the inhibition is the disturbance of a public meeting only, the complaint states no facts constituting an offense.”

“the court should be prohibited from taking any action in the case other than to make an order dismissing the same.”

Synopsis

APPLICATION for a Writ of Prohibition to restrain the Superior Court of Kern County, and George H. Cabaniss, Judge Presiding, from proceeding to trial on an insufficient complaint, on an appeal from a judgment of conviction by a Justice’s Court. Writ granted.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

SHAW, J.

Prohibition to restrain respondent, after a ruling denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss the case, from proceeding with the threatened trial of petitioner on an appeal by him to the superior court from a judgment of conviction by the justice’s' court based upon a complaint which purported to charge him with the violation of section 403 of the Penal Code. The contention of petitioner is that the complaint fails to charge him with the commission of any acts constituting a criminal offense under said section, or under any other provision of the law.

[1]

The section in question was originally adopted by the legislature in 1872. The head line or title of the section is,

“Disturbance of Public Meetings, Other Than Religious or

Politicaland the body thereof provides: “Every person who, without authority of law, willfully disturbs or breaks up any assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character, other than such as is mentioned in sections fifty-nine and three hundred and two, is guilty of a misdemeanor,” Petitioner properly insists that the title or head-note of the section must be deemed a part of the substance of the enactment and accorded the same effect as though written into the body of the law.

(Bettencourt

Sheehy,

157 Cal. 698, [109 Pac. 89]

; Alden

Mayfield,

33 Cal. App. 724, [166 Pac. 382];

Sharon

Sharon,

75 Cal. 1, [16 Pac. 345];

Wall

[6]

Estate Co.

Farraher v. Superior Court

AI Brief

Synopsis

SHAW, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief