Ex Parte Bargagliotti

[334]

HART, J.

The petition of W. F. Cowan, Esq., alleges that the prisoner is unlawfully restrained of his liberty by J. K. Smith, sheriff of Sonoma county. The principal point relied upon for the release of the prisoner is that the certified copy of the judgment of conviction and sentence, or the commitment, from which said sheriff derives his authority to hold said prisoner, does not “state or describe in what jail, or the jail of what county, said Victor Bargagliotti shall be imprisoned. ’ ’

Bargagliotti, it appears, was arrested on a warrant issued by the justice of the peace of Cloverdale township, in the county of Sonoma, upon a complaint charging him with the crime of assault upon his wife. Upon his arraignment before the justice, the prisoner entered a plea of guilty to the offense charged in the complaint, and thereafter said justice pronounced upon him the following judgment or sentence: “ ... It is therefore ordered and adjudged that you, the said Victor Bargagliotti, as a punishment for the offense committed, be confined in the county jail for the period of ninety days.” The title of the court is, as is usual in such documents, given in the certified copy of the judgment here, and is as follows: “In the Justice’s Court of Cloverdale Township, County of Sonoma, State of California.” There is also inserted therein, but not in the body of the judgment, the following: “Complaining witness—Katie Bargagliotti. Charge of Assault. Committed at Cloverdale Township.” The contention on behalf of the prisoner is that the certified copy of the judgment upon its face shows that the justice of the peace, in imposing judgment upon the prisoner, exceeded his jurisdiction, because it does not appear therefrom to what particular “county jail” the prisoner was committed or sentenced; that, so far as it appears from such judgment, the prisoner might be confined in some “county jail” other than that to which the justice of the peace has jurisdiction to sentence him; that under said judgment said prisoner could be confined in any of the “county jails” of the state. It may be admitted that the certified copy of the judgment upon which the sheriff holds the prisoner is not as specific as it should be, and that the jail to which it is within the jurisdiction of the justice to commit the prisoner should have been specifically designated or described; yet the point involves technicality pressed to its utmost limit. The return of the sheriff discloses that he is