Prather

People v. Prather

Good Law
120 Cal. 660·1898 Cal. LEXIS 831·53 P. 259
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMay 18, 1898Crim. No. 360California1,732 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Searls, J.

This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of conviction of grand larceny and from an order denying his motion for a new trial. The defendant was prosecuted by information hied by the district attorney in the .county of Yolo, on the 14th of April, 1897. The following excerpt from the information will serve to illustrate the objections urged against its sufficiency:

A motion was made to set aside the information, but, as the grounds upon which it is based are not made to appear of record or otherwise, the ruling of the court does not call for comment. A demurrer was interposed to the information upon the statutory grounds prescribed by section 1004 of the Penal Code. The *662 demurrer was disallowed by the court, and the ruling is assigned as error.

The contention oí appellant is that the information is too indefinite, in that the property alleged to have been feloniously taken could not have belonged to the estate of James 6. Fair, deceased. It is true that, technically speaking, the personal property of James G. Fair, at his death, descended to his heirs or legatees, subject to the possession and a special property in his executors or administrators for the purposes of…

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.