This is an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County denying a writ of prohibition.

Appellant Herman Wadler was found guilty after a jury trial on two counts of a violation of Penal Code, section 415 (disturbing the peace). The justice court on February 15, 1955, pronounced “judgment” on each count as follows:

An appeal was taken from the “judgment.”

On April 23, 1955, one Antone J. Borba made a citizen’s arrest of Mr. Wadler. At the time of the arrest Borba made a charge that Wadler was disturbing the peace, and Wadler was booked on the charge. On April 25, 1955, Mr. Borba signed a complaint charging Wadler with a violation of section 1203.2 of the Penal Code which deals with rearrest and revocation of probation. A demurrer to the complaint was filed, and Mr. Wadler entered a plea of not guilty to the charge. On May 23, the justice court sustained the demurrer and ordered the proceeding stayed to be set at a later date for hearing. After the appeal on Mr. Wadler’s original conviction was affirmed, notice was received by Mr. Wadler of a hearing to determine the violation of his probation. At this hearing on June 29, 1955, Mr. Wadler, through his attorney, made certain motions:

These motions were denied and a hearing was held at which both sides presented evidence.

The record shows that the court then made the following order:

Prior to the execution of the sentence Mr. Wadler applied to the superior court for a writ of prohibition. An alternative writ issued. The city attorney of the city of Merced filed an answer on behalf of the respondent justice court. Petitioner moved that this answer be stricken because, as he alleged, the city attorney was without authority to represent respondent. This motion was denied.

Following a hearing on the order to show cause the court made the following order: “The Court orders Writ of Prohibition is denied and further orders that the proceedings in the lower court have been regular and legal. ’ ’

As grounds for a reversal of the judgment of the superior court denying his application for a writ of prohibition, appellant makes the following major contentions:

Before discussing these contentions we think it well to point out that section 1203.2 of the Penal Code provides in part as follows:

As stated by our Supreme Court in In re Levi, 39 Cal.2d 41 , at page 44 [ 244 P.2d 403 ]:

While it must be stated that proceedings in the justice court with regard to the revocation or modification of the terms of probation were somewhat unusual and in large part superfluous, it is also true, as is clear from the authorities hereinbefore cited, that no rights of appellant were invaded in any manner by the procedure in the justice court. Section 1203.3 of the Penal Code gives the court authority at any time during the term of probation to revoke, modify, or change its order. Under section 1203.3 the court had authority to do what it did, so the fact that it purported to act under another section is immaterial in a probation proceeding. Section 1203.3 does not require that a probationer be convicted of any crime. The section says the court shall have authority at any time during the term of probation to revoke, modify or change its order. The court in this instance held a hearing at which appellant was represented by counsel and during which evidence was produced from which it could determine that a modification of the probation order was proper.

Appellant also contends that the judgment of the superior court is void because it is not supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law. The petition in the superior court was for a writ of prohibition. The question presented was whether the justice court exceeded its jurisdiction which is a question of law. Section 632 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is the section which provides for findings of fact and conclusions of law, begins: “In superior courts . . . , upon the trial of a question of fact by the court . . . the facts found and the conclusions of law must be separately stated. ...” If jurisdiction were a question of fact the superior court would have committed error. But jurisdiction is usually construed to mean the power of a court to hear and determine or power to act in a certain manner. (Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, 17 Cal.2d 280 [ 109 P.2d 942 , 132 A.L.R. 715 ].) A determination of whether the justice court could modify the probation order is not the determination of a question of fact within the meaning of section 632 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By its judgment the superior court determined the only question before it, namely, whether the justice court exceeded its jurisdiction. No findings are required where no issue of fact is decided. (Estate of Kearns, 129 Cal.App.2d 832 [ 278 P.2d 85 ] ; Wheeler v. Board of Medical Examiners, 98 Cal.App. 267 [ 276 P. 1119 ].)

No other points raised require discussion.

The judgment is affirmed.

Van Dyke, P. J., and Peek, J., concurred.

A petition for a rehearing was denied October 23, 1956, and appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied November 21, 1956.