Butler v. Hastings

THE COURT. An action by an attorney, as assignee, to recover from defendant, who was the chief of police of the city of ‘Watsonville, a sum deposited by plaintiff’s assignor as bail for his appearance on a criminal charge.

Judgment was entered for the defendant, and plaintiff has appealed.

The assignor was charged by a complaint filed in the police court of the above city with having contributed to the delinquency of two minor girls by the commission of certain acts tending to bring them within the Juvenile Court Law, namely, keeping them from home all night, plying them with liquor and soliciting sexual intercourse with them. At the time the warrant issued the magistrate indicated by an indorsement thereon the amount which he would require as cash bail, and the amount in case a bond should be furnished; and the assignor at the time of his arrest was apprised of this by the arresting officer. The [643]arrest was made after the office of tbe magistrate bad closed for the day. The evidence shows sufficiently that at the implied request of the assignor the defendant accepted the sum in question, to be delivered to the magistrate as cash security for the assignor’s appearance, and it was so delivered on the same evening. The plaintiff appeared in court on the following morning as the assignor’s counsel, and the hearing was regularly continued to the 17th of the same month. No question was raised by the attorney as to any irregularity in the previous proceedings. Nothing to the contrary appears from the record; and we must presume that any necessary order fixing the amount of bail was then made and the deposit applied accordingly. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1963, subd. 15.) Subsequently, the assignor not appearing, an order was made that the bail be forfeited, and the same was later deposited in the city treasury.

The police court had preliminary jurisdiction of the case (14 Cal. Jur., Infants, sec. 46, p. 158; Gardner v. Superior Court, 19 Cal. App. 548 [126 Pac. 501] ; People v. Budd, 24 Cal. App. 176; People v. Superior Court, 104 Cal. App. 276, 281 [285 Pac. 871]), and the warrant issued was regular in form.

Plaintiff claims that the complaint failed to state a public offense; that the magistrate was without power to fix bail in the alternative or to delegate to the arresting officer power to accept the same or to release the accused.

The complaint was sufficient as against a general demurrer. (People v. De Leon, 35 Cal. App. 467 [170 Pac. 173]; People v. Perfetti, 88 Cal. App. 609 [264 Pac. 318]; People v. Kinser, 99 Cal. App. 778 [279 Pac. 488].)