Clingan

People ex rel. Attorney General v. Clingan

Good Law
5 Cal. 389
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 1, 1855California587 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Murray, J.

Heydenfeldt, J., and Bryan, J., concurred.

' This was an information in the nature of a quo tvarranto filed by the Attorney General against David Clingan, who claimed to exercise the duties of Sheriff of Marin County.

On the trial of the cause in the Court below, the Attorney General offered as a witness one James T. Stocker, who claimed the office by virtue of an election, and who testified that his certificate of election was lost or destroyed. Upon this, the testimony of the County Judge, who deposed that he had seen said certificate, was offered to prove its contents; which testimony was excluded. The evidence of the County Clerk was also offered, who swore that there was not in his office, or so far as he knew, in the county, any record or written evidence of the persons who were elected to the different County Offices, &c.; upon which, the plaintiff asked the witness if he knew who was elected, and also, if he knew who was generally reputed by the people of said county to have been elected Sheriff at said election; which- questions were objected to by the defendant, and the objection was sustained by the Court.

It is said that the last two questions were improper, because…

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.