The herald., 1893-10-28
THE TERM is ENDED.
THE SUPREME COURT CONCLUDES
IT'S FALL TERM LAB0RS.
A Writ of Prohibition Granted Against
Judge Shaw in the Wagner In
solvency Osse-Baker De-
MED "a New Trial.

The supreme court concluded lts la
bors yesterday, and the fall term for
this district was adjourned late in the
afternoon. The justices will not tarry
long before going north, only Justices
De Haven and Fitzgerald remaining over
until this morning. The term was quite
an uneventful one, consisting princi-
pally Of the hearing of arguments in
cases and the submission OF cases on
briefs. A very few decisions were rem
dered during the term.
WRIT OF PROHIBITION GRANTED.
The supreme court yesterday in bank
granted writ of prohibition in the L.
M. Wagner insolvency case, thus ruling
\ adversely to Judge Shaw in the points in
issue.
Mrs. Wagner WAS sdjudged ineovent
September %, 1892, by the superior
court, and subsequently the court made
distribution of the property which had
come into possession OF the assignee,
granted her discharge and discharged
the assignee.
After these orders, two petitions we're
filed, each praying for the annulment of
the certificate OF discharge on the ground
OF alleged fraud in obtaining it. One
of these petitions was by the assignee
and the other by creditor OF the in
solvent Wagner.
Judge Shaw made an order requiring
Mrs. Wagner to appear October 30th
and show cause why the order dis
charging her from her indebtedness
should not be vacated.
Upon the same day the coart made
another order requiring Mrs. Wagner
to appear for examination in relation
to her property, it being claimed that
certain property had been secreted, and
also directed subpenas to issue requir-
ing the; atsendance Of other persons
claiming toownahsp property. SSe
The object OF the present proceeding
was to prohibit tire court from acting
under the later order. -e-7r
The supreme court holds that the ap-
plication must be granted. The order
under which the superior court is pro-
tition OF the, assignee, ard is without
jurisdiction to hear it. Such proceed
ing could only be commenced by q
creditor of the ineolvent. The writ OF
prohibition is therefore directed to issue.
In the matter of the petition by the
creditor, the superior court holds that
Mrs. Wagner and the other persons
named may be required to give their
depositions or appear in open court and
give their testimony upon the Issues
arising upon the petition and answer
thereto.
NEW TRIAL DENIED.
A decision was rendered by the su-
perior court in the case of People vs.
Edward l.. Baker.
He was convicted of forgery in the
Los Angeles superior court and new
trial was denied.
in his appeal great many points OF
error arei contended for, but the court
does not consider any of them material
enough to set aside the verdict.
The most serious point was charge
that the lower court unjustly censured
the appellants attorney, but it is not
considered of sufficient impropriety OF
Importance TO warrant setting aside the
verdict.
The supreme court also filed an opin-
ion in the case from Fresno county of A.
Montgomery, plaintiff and appellant vs..
Albarnus l.. sayre, executor, defendant
and respondent, affirming the judgment
OF the lower court. 1t was q suit upon
q $40, 600 note in which verdict was given
for the defendant and a new trial wae
denied