Case ID: cal_84/html/0616-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Foote, C.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 20627.
    Department One.
    June 24, 1890.]
    THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. HARRY WILLIAMS, Appellant.
    Criminal Law — Motion to Set Aside Information — Alleged Commitment by Polioe Judge— Failure of Evidf-noe — Presumption upon Appeal. — When a motion is made to set aside an information in the superior court upon the alleged ground that the commitment was made by a police judge having no jurisdiction to commit, and the record upon appeal from a judgment of conviction upon such information does not show by any evidence that the commitment was made by a person claiming to be a police judge, the alleged facts will not he taken as true without proof; but it will be presumed, in favor of the action of the court below, that a proper commitment had been made by a duly qualified magistrate.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and from an order denying a new trial. ■
    The facts are stated in the opinion.
    
      Hugh J. and William Crawford, for Appellant.
    
      Attorney-General Johnson, for Respondent.
   Foote, C.

The defendant, Harry Williams, was convicted upon an information for robbery. From the judgment rendered in the premises, and an order refusing a new trial, he appeals.

The ground apparently relied on for a reversal of the judgment and order is, that the defendant was committed for trial after a preliminary examination before M. T. Owen, assuming to act as a committing magistrate by virtue of his being a judge of the police court in and for the city of Los Angeles, at a time when there were two justices of the peace or magistrates in and for said city who had jurisdiction to act in the premises, which it is claimed the police judge had not; that consequently the court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to set aside the information based on the claim that he had never been legally committed by a magistrate.

The record does not show by any evidence whatever that M. T. Owen, claiming to be such police judge, ever committed the defendant for trial. We must presume, in the absence of anything showing the contrary, in favor of the action of the court below, that some duly qualified magistrate had, previous to the trial in the superior court, properly committed the defendant for such trial, hut who he was does not appear, for it will not be taken for granted that the facts set up in the defendant’s motion are true, without any proof as to the matter.

It follows, therefore, that the judgment and order should he affirmed, and we so advise.

Belcher, C. C., and Gibson, C., concurred.

The Court.—For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment and order are affirmed.