Morehouse v. Superior Court

[39]

CRAIG, J.

The petitioner, charged by indictment with a violation of the Corporate Securities Act, applied for a writ of prohibition, following an adverse ruling upon a demurrer, and motion to dismiss, and asserts that said indictment was not founded upon sufficient evidence to warrant its rendition.

It is familiar law that prohibition arrests the proceedings of a tribunal when such proceedings are without or in excess of its jurisdiction. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1102.) Jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine. It does not depend upon the regularity of its exercise, nor upon the correctness or justness of the decision of the court. The power to decide carries with it authority to decide wrongly as well as rightly.

(Sherer

v.

Superior Court,

96 Cal. 653 [31 Pac. 565];

Central Pac. R. R. Co.

v.

Placer County Equalization Board,

43 Cal. 365;

Dahlgren

v.

Superior Court,

8 Cal. App. 622 [97 Pac. 681].) It has been held that prohibition will not lie to restrain the superior court from proceeding with a trial upon an indictment, upon the ground that there was no evidence before the grand jury tending to show that the petitioner was guilty of a public offense.

(Brobeck

v.

Superior Court,

152 Cal. 289 [92 Pac. 646].) The fact that the grand jury may have received incompetent evidence upon which it found an indictment, or have based the same either wholly or in part upon incompetent evidence, does not constitute one of the grounds enumerated in section 995 of the Penal Code upon which an indictment may be set aside.