Hammon

The sole question involved herein is petitioner’s right, upon a conceded showing, made in the justice’s court of Los Angeles township, that she was destitute and unable to pay the cost, to prosecute in forma pcmperis an action brought by her in said court. The trial court held that she was so entitled to sue and made its order granting a peremptory writ of mandate, directed to the justices’ court, re quiring it to proceed with the trial without the payment of such cost. The appeal is from this order.

In our opinion, the decision in Martin v. Superior Court, 176 Cal. 289 , [L. R. A. 1918B, 313, 168 Pac. 135 ], must be regarded as conclusive in support of the order made by the trial court. In that case the right to prosecute the action in forma pauperis was upheld upon the ground that such right existed at common law, which, in the absence of any statutory modification thereof, must be deemed the rule of decision in the courts of this state. The only distinction between that case and this is that in the former the action was pending in the superior court, while in the instant case it is pending in the court of a township justice. The essential facts are identically the same, since…