The record-union., 1892-10-06
SACRAMENTO CASES.
Four Of Them Decided by the State
Supreme Court.
Abductor Dolan Must Stay in Prison
a Victory for w. p. Harlow
Other Cases Decided.

The Supreme Court yesterday filed Its
decision IN the case of the People VS.. d.
+. Dolan, who was convicted of the alb
duction of a young girl in this city,
named Kittie Sheridan, under Section 267
of the Penal Code. From the judgment
rendered, and from an order refusing a
new trial, and from an order refusing to
grant motion in arrest Of Judgment, he
appealed. The court says:
mo appeal lies from the order last
mentioned. People VS.. Markham, "a
Cal. 1919
lone of the material points made for
the reversal of the judgment and order
is ehat the magistrate before whom the
preliminary examination was had, after
the defendants arrest, did not himself
swear the complaining witness to the
complaint filed against the defendant.
The magistrate was the Judge OF the
Police Court of Sacramento, and the af1i-
davit to the complaint was taken by the
clerk of the court. Even if it be ad-
mitted that such clerk had no power to
take the affidavit, or oath, we do not see
how that affects the question Of the va
Gdity of the information, which, upon
this as one ground urged by the ap-
pellant, the Superior Court refused to set
aside; for it was said by the appellate
court in People VS.. Velarde, 80 Cal. 457 b:
The regularity Of the proceeding by in
formation did not, therefore, depend in
any manner upon the affidavit on which
the warrant of arrest was issued, and
had no connection with it,
''If the affidavit or deposition Of the
informant or prosecutor, under Section
81 of the Penal Code or the sworn COM
plant, which it is the usual practice TO
III n
has no connection with the information,
we do not perceive how this defect can
affect the validity of the information
filed in this case, if in other respects the
committing magistrate has proceeded
properly"
The supreme Court then goes on to an
swer a number of claims for which the
appellant contends, but which in each
material instance are denied, among them
being several objections to the instruc-
tIons to the jury, given by the Judge,
but which are sustained by the Supreme
Court as being correct and proper.
In concluding the opinion the Su-
preme Court says: I'VE do not observe
any error in the courts charge-that the
defendant, when witness in his own
behalf, having introduced no evidence of
his good character, is not to be aSsailed
by the prosecution being permitted to
introduce proof Of his general bad char
acter. The charge was in favor of the de-
tendant, and not against him.
Neither do we perceive any error in
this instruction for the people, viz: You
are instructed that the girl, Kittie Sheri-
dan (if she did consent), is of no avail to
the prisoner, if she is under age, notwith-
standing that the defendant bona fide be-
lieved and had reasonable grounds for
believing that she was over age
There was no dispute but that the
girl was under age, as we read the record,
and counsel concede that this fact was
proven; and the defendant must, in case
of this sort, act at his peril in abducting q
girl under age, and cannot defend him
self on the plea Of ignorance of her age.
people VS.. Fowler. So Cal. 1881
I'VE have carefully examined the
whole record and the very voluminous
brief of counsel for appellant, but we find
no prejudicial error in the record and
advise that the judgment and order deny
ing new trial be affirmed"
THE wARNoCK-HARLow CASE.
The court also filed it's decision in the
case of w. +. Warnock VS.. w. p. Har-
low, appellant, and a. P. Catlin, re-
Spondent.
ON May 4, 1881, w. w. Brison was the
owner OF the lands described in the COM
plant and on that day conveyed the same
to his wife, Carrie NJ. BriSon. On Sep
tember 10, 1856, w. w. Brison com
menced an action against his wife the
object of which was to obtain a decree de-
claring that she held the title to said
lands in trust for himself, and to compel
reconveyance and at the same time file
a IiS pendenS in the Recorders office.
On November y, 1888, a decree was en-
tered in said cause requiring Mrs. Brison
to execute such conveyance within ten
days, and in default thereof directing the
Clerk of the court to execute such deed
in her name, and such deed was made
and delivered by the Clerk on December
5, 1888, and recorded on the same day.
On November %, 1883, after the entry
of said decree, and before the execution
of the deed by the Clerk, w. w. Brison
conveyed the land mentioned to defend
ant Catlin, one of the respondents herein.
On September Is, 1886, some four or five
hours before the suit of BriSon VS.. Bri-
son was commenced, and before the HS
peHdeHS was filed, Mrs. Brison conveyed
the same land to appellant, w. Z. Har-
low, but which deed was not recorded
until August Is, 1887.
The plaintiff in this action, w. E. War
mock, was the lessee of the same land
from Mrs. Brison from October /, 1885.
for one year, and again for second year,
ending October l, 1887, and paid the rent
to her. From October /, 1887, up to Octo-
ber /, 1880, Warnock was tenaut of the
same land under a lease from Harlow
and for the first year paid the rent tc
Harlow. The rent for the second and
third years was the subject of the con-
troVerSy.
The cause was tried by the Superior
wEA