In Re Murphy

THE COURT.

This matter is before the court upon application for a writ of

habeas corpus

after judgment of conviction, and only one point is presented for our consideration. The petition alleges that on Saturday afternoon, December 18, 1920, a portion of the testimony of one Fred A. Smith and the whole of the testimony of one Henry Heidelberg was taken as a part of the trial of the defendant. It appears that on said day when the hour of noon arrived the court mentioned such fact and petitioner’s counsel stated: “We make no objection to finishing with this witness.” At that particular time the witness Fred Smith was being examined. After the conclusion of the testimony of Fred Smith it appears that Henry Heidelberg, a witness for the defense, was examined; that no objection was made to the examination of the witness Heidelberg, but that petitioner’s counsel did examine said witness. The verdict of the jury and the judgment of the court were entered upon a judicial day. The contention, however, here is made that because the court took testimony or a portion of the testimony during a nonjudicial day that the whole proceeding is void. The law appears to be well settled that upon a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus

the scope of the inquiry is limited to questions affecting the jurisdiction of the court, the sufficiency in point of law of the proceedings and the validity of the judgment or commitment under which the prisoner is restrained. This inquiry is limited to the face of the

[66]

proceedings. In other words, the alleged invalidity must appear upon the face of the judgment attacked by this method. (12 R. C. L. 1185, sec. 8; p. 1240, see. 59; 13 Cal. Jur. 217, see. 4, and cases there cited.) In

Ex parte Long,

114 Cal. 159 [45 Pac. 1057], it is stated: “The inquiry to be had thereunder (on

habeas corpus

proceedings) does not extend beyond the question of jurisdiction and the validity of the process on its face.”