Ex Parte Henry Turner, On Habeas Corpus

Paterson, J. —The complaint upon which the petitioner was arrested, tried, and convicted charged that “said Henry Turner committed the crime of petit larceny, a misdemeanor, as follows, to wit; The said Henry Turner, on or about the thirteenth day of February, 1888, at the city of Stockton, county of San Joaquin, and state of California, did willfully, unlawfully, and felo[227]niously steal, take, and carry away certain faucets, tube-scrapers, thumb and screw wrenches, and old pipe and pipe-connections, of the value of four dollars, gold coin of the United States of America, the same being then and there the personal property of the state of California.”

The return of the sheriff shows that the petitioner is held in custody by virtue of a certified copy of the judgment of the police court, the material portion of which is as follows: “ Whereas, the said Henry Turner, having been duly convicted in this court of the crime of willfully and unlawfully stealing, taking, and carrying away certain personal property, the same being the property of the state of California, and of the value of four dollars or thereabouts, a misdemeanor; it is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the said defendant be punished by a fine of eighty dollars, and in default of the payment of such fine, that he be imprisoned in the county jail of San Joaquin County, California, until said fine is satisfied, said imprisonment to be at the rate of one day for each two dollars of said fine.”

Counsel for petitioner has made a very ingenious argument on behalf of his client, but has failed to convince me that the judgment is void. The distinction between a void and a voidable judgment is sometimes very nice, and the judgment will fall under the one class or the other accordingly as it is regarded for different purposes. In some of the cases cited the commitments were for the purpose of holding the defendant to answer. After trial and conviction, the commitment is of a higher dignity than an ordinary commitment holding to answer. This is true with courts, both of special or limited jurisdiction and those of general jurisdiction.' The judgment of a court of inferior jurisdiction is, to a great extent, as far beyond the reach of collateral attack by the writ of habeas corpus as the judgments of higher courts are. (Church on Habeas Corpus, sec. 240.)

[228]