In Re Lewis

Habeas Corpus—Commitment of Minor to Whittier State School— Several Complaints—Support of Warrant.—When a warrant of commitment of a minor to the Whittier State School for juvenile offenders is by its terms based upon a first complaint filed, in the superior court, a copy of a second complaint filed at a later date, appended to the warrant, and of a third complaint, filed still later, introduced at the hearing upon habeas corpus, can neither of them be treated as supporting the warrant.

Id.—Insufficiency of First Complaint—Prior Decision upon Habeas Corpus.—Where the first complaint upon which the warrant was based was before this court upon a former application for a writ of habeas corpus, and was then held insufficient to support a commitment, it will be held insufficient for the reasons stated in that opinion.

Id.—Insufficiency of Second Complaint—Absence of Averment— Incorrigibility—Description in Prayer.—The second complaint appended to the warrant, which fails to aver that the home of the prisoner is an unfit place for her for any reason, or that she is incorrigible, or a vagrant, or to aver any fact, bringing the minor within the terms of the statutes (Stats. 1905, pp. 81, 806), is insufficient. The fact that in the prayer of the complaint the prisoner is described as “an incorrigible minor” is immaterial, such description not being sufficient to support a charge of perjury against the person swearing to the complaint.

IP.—Insufficiency of Third Complaint—Age Limit Exceeded.—The third complaint introduced at the hearing is fatally defective in alleging that the prisoner is over the age of sixteen and under eighteen years of age, since the dependent child act, under which it is drawn, affects children under sixteen years only.

Id.—Marriage of Minor Subsequfnt to Complaint—Discharge on Habeas Corpus.—Where it appears from the sworn petition for the writ of habeas corpus that, since the filing of all the complaints, the minor prisoner has been married and is the wife of the petitioner, and such allegation is not denied, it must be taken as true, and makes her an adult person, not within the Whittier act, and the act concerning dependent children, and is sufficient ground for her discharge.