In Re Martin

THE COURT.

Petitioner is imprisoned in the state prison at San Quentin under a judgment of sentence imposed by the Superior Court in and for Los Angeles County for the crimes of bribing a witness and conspiracy to bribe a witness. The judgment of conviction was affirmed on appeal

(People

v.

Martin,

114 Cal. App. 392 [300 Pac. 130]), and petitioner now seeks to be discharged on

habeas corpus.

The application for the writ is filed by petitioner

in propria persona.

It contains some 560 closely typed and printed pages and is devoted chiefly to torrents of vituperation directed against those who were in any way identified with his prosecution and conviction, and against insurance companies generally. Incidentally some 40 specific grounds are urged for the issuance of the writ. An examination of those grounds discloses, however, that all but one relate to matters which were or should have been urged during the trial of the action, on motion for new trial, in arrest of judgment, or on appeal from the judgment of conviction; and which after affirmance of said judgment cannot be inquired into on

habeas corpus.

For instance, some of them are based upon accusations of fraud, conspiracy, corruption and impure motives on the part of the district attorney’s office, the witnesses for the prosecution, a former attorney for the defense and certain insurance companies;

[66]

others in their nature are an attack upon the integrity of the trial judge, the jury and the court reporters; a number involve alleged errors of law which it is claimed were committed during the trial of the action; and several pertain to the weight of testimony and the credibility of certain witnesses, alleged misconduct of the district attorney, and the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict of the jury.

As held in the cases hereinafter cited the function of a writ of