In Re Capanna

Petitioner was convicted in the justice court of Scotia Township, county of Humboldt, California, on the alleged charge of gambling, and was sentenced to pay a fine of one hundred dollars, and, in default of payment, to be imprisoned in the county jail of said county of Humboldt one day for every dollar of the fine. The charging part of the said complaint was as follows: “Personally appeared before me, this 22d day of August, 1919, S. Catargli of Wildwood in the County of Humboldt, who, first being duly sworn, complains and says: That said N. Capanna on the 17th day of August, 1919, at Wildwood in said county of Humboldt, State of California, did then and there knowingly and unlawfully conduct a percentage and banking gambling game—Seechinetta.” [1] The point upon which petitioner relies is that said complaint utterly fails to state any offense known to the law. Being so defective, it is the claim of petitioner that he is entitled to his discharge upon habeas corpus. The nature and scope of this writ have been considered often by the courts and it is unnecessary to treat the subject with any degree of elaboration. It is sufficient to refer to the well-considered case of In re…