People v. Maguire

California Supreme Court Oct 15, 1864Published

Before: Sanderson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the criminal complaint sufficiently stated the offense of operating a theatre on the Sabbath in violation of the statute, and that the County Court acted within its jurisdiction in conducting a trial de novo on appeal.

Issues

Whether the criminal complaint sufficiently stated facts to constitute a misdemeanor under the Act to prohibit barbarous and noisy amusements on the Sabbath.
Whether the County Court had jurisdiction to try the case de novo on appeal from the Police Judge's Court.

Disposition. writ dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“in our judgment it contains, in substance, a sufficient statement of the facts constituting the offense intended to be charged.”

“In stating the facts constituting either of these offenses, it is only necessary, under our system of criminal pleading, to follow as near as may be the language of the statute.”

“There has been no excess of jurisdiction on the part of the County Court, and the writ must be dismissed”

Synopsis

Appeal from the Comity Court of San Francisco.

The following are the records of the Police Judge’s Court:

“ Tuesday, June 21, 1864.

“ Police Judge’s Court.

“Present, presiding, his Honor P. W. Shepheard.

“The defendant arrested charged with misdemeanor by violation of the Sunday Law, and on motion of defense, the Court orders that the case be continued until Wednesday, June 22, 1864.

“ Wednesday, June 22, 1864.

“ Case being called, defendant demurred to the complaint, on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and the Court sustains the demurrer, and orders that the case be dismissed, and defendant discharged.

“ I hereby certify that the above is a true copy of the records of the Police Judge’s Court in the above entitled cause.

“John H. Titcomb, Clerk.’’

Ho statement was made by the appellant on appeal, but the same was taken by serving the following notice :

“ To J. H. Titcomb, Esq., Cleric of the Police Judge’s Court of said City and County:

“ Sir :—You will please take notice that the People of the State of California, the plaintiff in the above entitled action, hereby appeals from the judgment therein made in said Court, on the twenty-second day of June, A. D. 1864, in favor of said defendant, Thomas Maguire, and against said plaintiff, and from the whole thereof, and from all orders, and the judgment made therein, on said day before mentioned; and also from the order and judgment therein made on said day, sustaining the plea and demurrer therein, and dismissing the above entitled action, and discharging the defendant, Maguire. This appeal is taken on questions of law alone, in the above entitled action. A. J. Hoyt is the complaining witness, who swore to the complaint in said action, and the crime or offense charged and alleged to have been committed at Pine street, in said city and county, etc.

“ Dated, San Francisco, June 24th, 1864.

“Davis Loudebbacic,

“Assistant District Attorney.”'

The other facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

By the Court, Sanderson, C. J. This case has been brought up for review by certiorari from the County Court of the City and County of San Francisco. It appears from the return that the defendant was arrested under a warrant issued by the Police Judge of the City and County of San Francisco, upon a complaint charging him with a violation of the Act entitled “An Act to prohibit barbarous and noisy amusements on the Christian Sabbath.” (Statutes of 1855, p. 50.) On his arraignment in the Police Judge’s Court, he demurred to the complaint on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a criminal offense. The demurrer was sustained and a judgment dismissing the case was entered. Thereafter the District Attorney appealed to the County Court. Upon the hearing, the County Court reversed the judgment and directed the case to be tried in that Court. Thereupon the defendant again demurred to the complaint upon the ground already stated, and upon the further grounds that two distinct offenses were improperly united, and that the County Court had no jurisdiction to try the case, but must remand it for trial to the Police Judge’s [639]Court. The demurrer was overruled and the defendant was subsequently tried and convicted.

The second section of the Act under which this prosecution was instituted provides that “ Any person who shall get up, or aid in getting up, or opening of any bull, bear, cock or prize fight, horse race, circus, theatre, bowling alley, gambling-house, room or saloon, or any place of barbarous or noisy amusements on the Sabbath, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not less than fifty nor more than five hundred dollars.”

The complaint reads as follows :

“State of California, City ancl County of Ban Francisco; Folice Judge's Court:

“Personally appeared before me this 20th day of June, 1864, A. J. Hoyt, who deposes and says, that on the 19th day of June, 1864, at Pine street,, in said city and county, the crime of misdemeanor was committed, to wit: by Thomas Maguire, who then and there did wilfully and unlawfully, on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday, to wit: on the Sabbath day, get up, and in getting up and opening of a theatre there, all of which is contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the people of the State of California; and said deponent accuses Thomas Maguire of having committed said crime, and prays that a warrant may be issued for the arrest of said Thomas Maguire, and that he may be brought before a magistrate and dealt with according to law.”

People v. Maguire

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief