The record-union., 1895-09-06
M'GOWAN'S APPEAL is DISMISSED.
The Supreme Court Holds 1t Has No
Jurisdiction.
Supervisor William Curtis Therefore
Wins on His Demurrer IL the
Superior Court.

The Supreme Court has dismissed the
appeal of D. J. MCGOWAN, who nleo an
accusation against Supervisor Wllllaln
Curtis some time ago, alleging that GURUS
had collected illegal fees and had neg
lscted to perform his official duties.
The Superior Court of this county sus-
tanned the Supervisors demurrer, ana as
MCGOWAN declined to amend his accusa-
ton, the proceedings were dismissed.
MCGOWAN appealed to the Supreme Court
with the result stated.
Following is the decision of the court
In full:
..While the respondent held the office
Of Supervisor of the Fourth Dlstrlct OF The
county of Sacramento, an accusation was
filed against him in the Superior court
for that county by d. j. McGowan, under
the provisions of Section ~ OF the PenaI
Code, charging him with collecting IL
legal fees and neglecting to perform MS
official duties. To this accusation the re-
spondent filed q demurrer upon various
grounds, which was sustained by the
court, and the accuser declining TO
amend his accusation the court entered a
judgment dismissing the proceeding.
From this Judgment MCGOWAN appealed.
The respondent has moved to dismiss the
appeal upon the ground that an appeal
from the action of the court under TINS
section OF the Penal Code is unauthor-
lied.
1.-The charge against the respondent is
of public offense-a neglect OF ofnclal
duty, or misdemeanor in Office, and the
proceeding against him is a criminal pro-
ceeding in the nature of an impeachment.
Cease OF J. j. Marks, 45 Cal. l99.) AT Inc
common law an officer guilty OF neglect
OF official duty was liable to indictment
and punishment by removal from ONCE.
(Throop on Public Officers, Chap. XXXn.;
Bac. ADD. Offices and Officers. \. See
also opinion of Kent, j., IN note TO REQ
pie VS.. Denton, 2 John, cases. Article
", Section IS, of the Constitution OF this
State after providing that certain State
officers shall be liable to impeachment
for misdemeanOr in office, declares: All
other civil officers shall be tried for mis-
demeanor in office in such manner as the
Legislature may provide. BY Section
~ of the Penal Code the Legislature has
provided manner for the trial OF certain
1nisdemeanors in office, by authorizing
an accusation in writing, verified by the
oath of any person, to be presented to the
Superior Court, and, If upon nearing
thereon after citation to the accused,
the charges are sustained, the court Is
authorized to remove the accused from
Office. These proceedings are Intended
to be summary, and as the Legislature
has made no provision for review OF the
action of the Superior Court its judgment
is final. (See appeal of Houghton, ~
Cal. So; Bixlers Appeal, SO Cal. 55O.)
''By Article VI, Section 4, OF the Con-
stitution, the Supreme Court is given ap-
pellate jurisdiction in all criminal cases
prosecuted by Indictment or information
in a court of record on questions OF law
alone.' Section 6S2 of the Penal Code
declares that:
a. '6S2 Every public otfense must be
prosecuted by indictment or information,
except
81. Where the proceedings are had for
the removal of civil officers Of the State.
The Information here authorized is
that named in the Constitution Article
l., Section 81 as the equivalent OF an in
dictment, and which is to be prepared by
the District Attorney under the pro-
visions of Section 500 Of the Penal Code.
The case of Marks, supra. WAS prosecuted
under the provisions of the ACT of March
Il, 1853 Stats. of 1853, p. 40), and by the
provisions of Section 8 of that Act either
party might appeal to the Supreme Court
as in other cases. The provisions OF this
section ceased 10 exist upon the adoption
OF the codes, and Section 1875 of the
Penal Code authorizes an appeal to this
court only in such criminal actions as
amount to a felony. AS the appellate
jurisdiction of this court in criminal cases
given by the Constitution extends only
TO such as are prosecuted by indictment
or Information, we have no jurisdiction
to entertain the present appeal.
1.-The appeal is dismissed"
The decision is by Justice Harrison and
is concurred in by Justices Garoutte and
Van Fleet.