McGranahan

McGranahan v. Police Court

Good Law
1922 Cal. App. LEXIS 559·56 Cal. App. 372·205 P. 98
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 10, 1922Civ. No. 4167.California1,958 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Sturtevant, J.

The first case sounds in prohibition and the second is an application for a writ of habeas corpus. Both proceedings were instituted for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of the police court of the city and county of San Francisco over misdemeanors, the punishment for which may exceed a fine of five hundred dollars or six months in the county jail, or both. In the interest of clarity of expression, we will specially refer to the facts as presented in the prohibition proceeding, and the conclusion reached will rule both eases.

[1] The petitioner, William E. Conner, was charged, in a verified complaint, with having violated certain provisions of the Medical Practice Act (Stats. 1913, c. 354). By section 17 of that act the punishment may be a fine of six hundred dollars or imprisonment in the county jail for six months, or both. • The petitioner was, after his arrest, taken before the police court and that court set the case down for examination and threatens to proceed and hold an examination, and if the proof adduced at the examination is sufficient, to hold the petitioner to appear before the superior court for trial. If the jurisdiction of the police court in such a…

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.