Matter of Application of Hartwell

Good Law
1915 Cal. App. LEXIS 395·28 Cal. App. 627·153 P. 730
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 20, 1915Crim. No. 328.California1,705 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Chipman, J.

It appears from the return of the sheriff that the said Arthur E. Hartwell was committed to his custody, on September 8, 1915, and is now detained, “based upon an order of a committing magistrate holding him to answer for the offense of burglary purported to have been committed by said Hartwell by entering the mill of the Croesus Gold Mining and Milling Company in the county of Sierra, state of California, on the 17th day of July, 1915, with intent then and there to commit the crime of larceny,” a copy of which commitment is made part of the return.

It appeared that the commitment was issued after the preliminary hearing on a complaint charging the crime, as stated in the sheriff’s return. The petition states that “there is not reasonable nor probable cause for such commitment for the reason that the evidence adduced at said preliminary examination wholly fails to show that said burglary was committed, or that any offense known to the laws of the state of California was committed at all, in this, that no evidence was adduced at said preliminary examination, showing, or tending to show that the said defendant, or that any other person, entered the said mill on (of) the said Gold…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.