In Re Crowley

California Court of Appeal Nov 30, 1928 No. Docket No. 1064.Published

Before: Plummer

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an affidavit for the commitment of an individual for the intemperate use of stimulants must state specific facts and circumstances rather than mere opinions or conclusions to confer jurisdiction upon the court. Because the affidavit in this case failed to provide such facts, the commitment was void, and the petitioner was entitled to discharge via habeas corpus.

Issues

Whether an affidavit for the commitment of an alleged inebriate that states only conclusions rather than facts is sufficient to confer jurisdiction.
Whether a commitment order based on a jurisdictionally defective affidavit is void and subject to challenge via habeas corpus.

Disposition. granted

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the cases hold that facts and not conclusions must appear in the affidavit filed at the institution of the matter”

“It is not a question of mere insufficiency, it is a failure to give life at the very birth of the cause, and we do not see how a court, proceeding to do that which it has no jurisdiction to do, can “animate the corpse.””

[220]

PLUMMER, J.

This matter is before the court upon the petition of Ida M. Briekell, praying for a writ of

habeas corpus

in behalf of Eva Crowley, wherein it is alleged that the said Eva Crowley is unlawfully detained, confined, and restrained of her liberty by Dr. G. W. Ogden, medical superintendent of the Napa State Hospital; that said writ be directed to the said Dr. 6. W. Ogden, and that upon the hearing hereof the writ be granted restoring said Eva Crowley to her liberty and releasing her from the custody of Dr. G. W. Ogden as superintendent of said Napa State Hospital.

The petition is based upon the alleged insufficiency of the affidavit upon which the proceedings in this matter were instituted to have the said Eva Crowley committed for and on account of the alleged excessive use of intoxicating stimulants, to give the court jurisdiction to proceed with the hearing and commitment of the said Eva Crowley.

The affidavit upon which the proceedings were instituted, in so far as material here, is in the following words: “James B. Crowley, being duly sworn, deposes and says: That there is now, in said County of San Francisco, a person named Eva Crowley who is so far addicted to the intemperate use of stimulants as to have lost the power of self-control.” And then, in the attempted statement as required by section 2168 of the Political Code, contains only those words: “Has lost all self-control and will-power from the excessive use of stimulants—quarrelsome and threatening.” Following what we have just stated, the affidavit prays, in the usual form, that proceedings be had, commitment be made, etc., and is subscribed and sworn to. The basis for this proceeding is found in section 2185c of the Political Code, containing provisions for the commitment of persons addicted to the intemperate use of narcotics or stimulants to such an extent as to have lost the power 0f self-control, etc. This section provides for an affidavit being made before a magistrate, and after so providing, specifies that the affidavit and warrant of arrest must be substantially in the form provided by section 2168 of the Political Code relating to the arrest of persons charged with insanity. Section 2168 of the Political Code contains the form which must be used as a foundation for the proceeding, and also requires that the facts relating to the party charged, or the actions of the

In Re Crowley

AI Brief

PLUMMER, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief