Ex parte Keil

The petitioner in the above-entitled case has been committed on charges of kidnaping and assault with a deadly weapon. He seeks to be discharged on habeas corpus, upon the grounds that the warrant of commitment is defective in substance, and that the evidence contained in the depositions shows that he was not guilty of the offense of kidnaping, but, at most, of a false imprisonment.

1. The commitments are defective in form in failing to show the name of the party assaulted and imprisoned; but this defect does not entitle the prisoner to be discharged. (Pen. Code, sec. 1488; Ex parte Bull, 42 Cal. 199 .)

Besides, a proper order for holding the petitioner to answer was in every instance indorsed on the depositions by the committing magistrate, and he could at any time amend the warrants of commitment so as to make them fully and formally descriptive of the offense proved** the depositions. (Ex parte Branigan, 19 Cal. 133 .)

2. The depositions show that the petitioner and others, about midnight of the 26tb of February, 1890, 4ent aboard of a schooner moored at the wharf in San Peidro, in the county of Los Angeles, and by threats, display of pistols, and actual force unlawfully…

We concur in the judgment remanding the petitioner; but we think that a design to take a person across that part of the Pacific Ocean which lies between the mainland and the island of Santa Catalina is a “ design to take him out of this state” within the meaning of that part of the Penal Code which defines kidnaping.