Miller & Lux Inc. v. Superior Court

THE COURT. There was pending in the Superior Court of Stanislaus County at all the times herein referred to, four [630]companion cases commonly referred to as the Vandervort, the Patterson, the Newhall and the Wilson cases, all involving issues having to do with certain water rights on the San Joaquin River, with the attorneys for the respective parties substantially the same.

The Vandervort and the Patterson cases were called for trial March 12, 1936, before Judge Caminetti of Amador County, sitting by designation of the Judicial Council. The Vandervort case was selected for trial, but counsel for plaintiffs in the Patterson case, in order to prevent the cause being dismissed for lack of prosecution under section 583 of the Code of Civil Procedure, asked and was granted permission to introduce a small amount of documentary evidence, occupying about 30 minutes in time. The case was thereafter continued from time to time. Similarly the Newhall and Wilson cases were called, a jury demanded, and an order made setting these cases for trial for June 29, 1936. On that date, while the Vandervort case was still being tried, those proceedings were likewise interrupted long enough to permit plaintiff to offer some evidence for the purpose of avoiding a dismissal. Over objection, a witness was sworn and examined briefly and the cause then continued.

On November 5, 1936, and upon the calling of these cases for further hearing, defendants in each of the three cases presented and filed statements of disqualification of Judge Caminetti. No written answer was filed to these statements, and without notice to defendants, and in their absence, these, documents were ordered stricken from the files.

Thereupon defendants, as petitioners, sought a writ of prohibition to prevent Judge Caminetti from proceeding with the several trials or performing any judicial acts in connection therewith, and for a writ of review to annul the order striking from the files these statements of disqualification.

The specifications of bias and prejudice set forth in the statement presented by petitioners are very similar to those contained in the statement filed and considered by this court in the eases of Woolley et al. v. Superior Court, and Miller & Lux Incorporated v. Superior Court, numbered 5749 and 5750 (ante, p. 611 [66 Pac. (2d) 680]), an opinion concerning which was this day filed.

It is herein charged that the judge was biased and prejudiced, and such attitude was evidenced by his statements and