In re Stow
Before: Belcher, Haven
Synopsis
Accusation against Commissioners of Golden Gate Park—Violation of Eight-hour Law — Insufficient Averment.—A written accusation, under section 772 of the Penal Code, against certain individuals, charging that “ while acting in the official capacity of commissioners of Golden Gate Park” they wilfully omitted to insert a provision that eight hours should constitute a legal day’s work, in a contract for labor upon said public park, and that they compelled the laborers employed by them to work nine hours daily, and praying their removal from office, and for a judgment of five hundred dollars in favor of the informer, as provided in said section of the Penal Code, but not averring where Goldeu Gate Park is located, or that the defendants were officers of the state or of any county or municipality when the contract was entered into, or that they held office when the accusation was filed, is fatally defective.
Id.—Jurisdiction of Superior Court to Remove State or County Officer— Showing Required. —In order to give the superior court authority to enforce the penal provisions of section 772 of the Penal Code for the removal from office of an unfaithful officer of the state, or of a county or municipality, who is within its jurisdiction, all the facts showing that the accused is a state, county, or municipal officer within the jurisdiction of the court, and when, . how, and where he refused or neglected to perform his official duty, must be . plainly and1 fully alleged, and the proceeding must be instituted while the \ accused is still in office] and not after his term has expired.
"
Opinion — Belcher
Belcher, C. On January 6, 1892, William M. Willey filed in the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco an accusation in writing, verified by his own oath, alleg[588]ing that the respondents Stow, Hammond, and Austin, “ while acting in the official capacity of commissioners of the Golden Gate Park,” entered into and signed an agreement with one Charles Warren, on or about August 12, 1891, whereby said' Warren contracted to perform certain work upon and within said public park; that the said contract was not drawn in the form prescribed by law, in that the stipulation, directed by section 3245 of the Political Code, that eight hours should constitute a legal day’s work, was omitted therefrom ; aad that this omission was made wilfully and knowingly by respondents, because prior to the execution of the said contract ■ they had been petitioned, for and on behalf of the citizens for whose protection the said statute was enacted, to have the said stipulation inserted in all contracts let by them. The accusation also alleged that the respondents, “ while commissioners of said Golden Gate Park,” have compelled the laborers employed by them to work nine hours daily; and it concludes with a prayer that the respondents be cited to appear in court and show cause why they should not be removed from office, and that judgment be given against them, in the sum of five hundred dollars each, in favor of the deponent as informer, and for costs, “ as provided by section 772 of the Penal Code of California, under which section this information is herewith filed.”
The respondents severally appeared and demurred to the' accusation upon nearly all the statutory grounds. After argument, the demurrers were sustained, and, the complainant declining to amend, judgment was entered that the proceeding be dismissed without costs. From this judgment the complainant appeals.
Section 772 of the Penal Code is as follows: “When an accusation in writing, verified by the oath of any person, is presented to a superior court, alleging that any officer within the jurisdiction of the court has been guilty of charging and collecting illegal fees for services rendered, or to be rendered in his office, or has refused or neglected to perform the official duties pertaining to his office, the court must cite the party charged to appear before the court at a time not more than ten nor less five days from the time the accusation was presented; and on that day or some other subsequent day not more than twenty
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)