The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1893-07-25
CRIMINAL CASES,
Superior Courts May Continue Them
Beyond Sixty Days,
So Declares the Supreme Court in It's
Decision in the Case of John
B. Strong of Yolo.

An opinion has been rendered in the
supreme Court in the case OF Strong VS..
W. II. Grant, Judge of the Superior
Court of Yolo County, an original pro-
ceedlng in which the Supreme Court was
asked to grant maudamus commanding
Judge Grant to dismiss charge OF assault
to commit murder against John b.
Strong.
The Information was filed on Septem-
Der 5, 1892, hut the prisoner was not ar
ralgned till the 10Th of Novemb Der follow
ing. When brought TO trial the prisoner
asked to be dismissed on the ground that
he had not been brought to trial within
sixty days after the filing Of the informa-
ton.
The court. after hearing the statement
OF the District Attorney, denied the mo-
ton. In passing upon the motion the
court took judicial notice of the fact that
the trial of jury cases had been fixed for
October 18th and that the jury appearing
on that day was excused till November
10Th, at which time the criminal cases
having precedence, over that against the
petitioner was proceeded with and not con-
Guided Till that OF the prisoner was called.
Ii furthermore appears that the reason
Tor the postpOnement of the trial OF cases
referred to from October It'll to Novem-
Der 10th, and the dismissal of the trial
jury till that day was because the election
campaign was then in progress and the
District Attorney was a candidate for re-
election.
The Supreme Court holds that Even
if it should be conceded that the motion
to dismiss was denied. the error cannot
he POrrpctpH i'm this TrocpnIiprV
When motion is made Tor the dis
charge Of defendant under the section
which says he must be brought to trial
within sixty days from the finding of the
indictment or filing of the information,
the question presented is judicial ques-
ton, involving i'll its decision the dis
cretIon of the court, ana when il has been
submitted and denied such judgment can
not be reversed by proceeding in man
damus.
The court further says: 1.-The rule is
so well established that it may be said
to be universal, that the writ Of mandate
cannot be used to correct the errors OF a
court in passing upon questions regularly
submitted to 1t in the course OF a judicial
proceeding, or to control the exercise OF
its discretion"
Whether the Judge erred or not in his
decision his action cannot be reversed by
mandamus, or indeed by any other
means, for the case is one in which the
County Court had final Jurisdiction. and.
II error was committed, there is no
remedy.
1t follows that the petitioner is not en-
titled to the relief asked for, and judg-
ment must be ordered in favor OF the de-
PENDANT.
The opinion is signed by De Haven, j.;
Harrison, Paterson and Fitzgerald con-
curing.
Chief Justice Beatty writes a concur
ring opinion, in which he holds that a
person charged with a criminal otfense is
entitled to speedy trial in order that if
innocent he may go free, and to detain
him arbitrarily while his trial is arbitra-
rlly postponed is wrong and injustice
which the law in question is designed to
correct. The effect of the decisions how
ever, is to render it nugatory, and it has
been held that no matter how unjustitia-
bly, the right secured by the statutes has
been disregarded by the Superior Court.
the injured party has no remedy except
to appeal to the Supreme Court, and this
is no remedy at all, for the innocent man
on acquittal has nothing left to appeal
from and only the guilty man can appeal.
The law was enacted for the benefit of
the innocent and not to screen the guilty.
but through the decisions it fails of its OBJ
iect.
An appeal is no remedy, for man can
not appeal until he Is tried, and the fact
that he cannot get a trial is what he COM
plains of, and if innocent and adjudged
50 there is no remedy left for him.
The Chief Justice states that he cannot
bring himself to admit that for such
wrong there is no remedy, and feels sat
ished that either habeas corpus or man
damuS must lie.
He comedies, however, that the petit
toner should not be discharged unless it
should appear that the Superior Court
abused its discretion in postponing the
trial. In this case it appears that the
prisoner was out on bail, and that mate
rial witnesses for the prosecution could
not be procured, so that the court did not
abuse its discretion.
On these grounds he concurs in the
judgment.