People v. Wong Wang
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Sharpstein, J.
Appellant was tried and convicted in the superior court of Los Angeles County upon an information charging him with having, on the eighteenth day of October, 1890, at the county of Los Angeles, willfully and unlawfully opened, carried on, and conducted a certain gambling game commonly known as Chinese pool; said gambling game being then and there a percentage game played for money, by means of and with certain devices, to wit, a billiard-table, a board, a billiard ball and cue.
*279 After appellant’s motion for a new trial had been overruled, he made a motion in arrest of judgment, one of the grounds of which was, that the court had no jurisdction of the offense charged in the information.
The information alleges that the offense was com-' mitted in the county of Los Angeles. That county embraces, with other territory, the city of Los Angeles. The offense charged is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment, and therefore the police court, if any there was, of the city of Los Angeles, if the offense was committed in said city, had jurisdiction of the offense.
Was there a police court in said city on the eighteenth day of October, 1890, the alleged date of the commission of the…
Concurring Opinion
Paterson, J.
I concur in the judgment. I do not think the census is complete, so far as the classification of cities is concerned, until the complete returns are filed in the office of the superintendent at Washington. (Ex parte Halstead, 89 Cal. 471 .)
De Haven, J., concurred in the judgment.