Crespi

The defendant, convicted of criminal libel in the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco, appeals from the judgment and from the order denying him a new trial.

The trial was had upon information filed in the superior court after examination held in the' police court of said city and county.

1. Appellant contends that his examination was without authority of law, and that therefore jurisdiction was never acquired by the superior court. This is based upon the provisions of the act of 1893, relative to the police court of San Francisco. (Stats. 1893, p. 9.)

Section 2 of that act declares:

From the foregoing, it is argued that the police court has no jurisdiction to try this particular kind of misdemeanor, for which the maximum penalty exceeds one thousand dollars fine and one year’s imprisonment. This is quite correct.

It is next insisted that, as the statute expressly authorizes the police court to hold examinations in all cases of felony, but makes no mention of examinations for offenses less than felony, it must be construed as a withholding of jurisdiction in this particular.

Notwithstanding the unreasonable and absurd anomaly which would result if the…