The record-union., 1898-10-09
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
SYTT RI
SYLLABI.
Grim, No. 45o-In Bank-Filed Sep
tember 30 1899

tember 81, 1S9S)
Elk Parte, Alfred Overend, on habeas
corpus. Contempt. Prisoner discharged.
A man cannot be imprisoned indefi-
nitely for the non performance of an
impossibility He can be indefinitely
punished for contempt only under Sec
ton 1919 G. c. p, and under that sec
ton he can be SO imprisoned only when
the contempt consists IL the omission
to perform an act which is yet in the
power Of the person tC perform. So,
where witness refuses to testify, and
the jury is discharged and the trial dis
continued, there is no opportunity left
the witness to purge his alleged con-
tempt. The occasion for enforcing a
proceeding against him under Section
1919, c. c. P, has passed, and he is
subject only to punishment for the past
alleged contempt under Section 121.
IS. F., No 1495-In Bank-Filed Octo-
Der /, 1889
James d. Page, petitioner; Superior
Court of San Francisco and D. T. Wal
lace, Judge thereof, respondents. Man
date to compel Judge to settle bill of
exceptions. Writ denied.
Under the legislative declarations of
Section III of the Penal Code, 1910,
c. c. p, and 44S0 Of the Political Code,
held, that if the provisions Of the stat
utes in respect to the time within which
the bill of exceptions must be present.
ed are not complied with the trial Judge
is authorized to refuse to settle the bill.
Is. F., No. 1646-In Bank-Filed Sep
tember 80, 1889
Z. l.. Hutchinson and E. NJ. Wardall,
petitioners; L. H. Brown, Secretary of
State, respondent. Mandamus. Writ
issue.
A political party can be represented
by but one convention and in case the
Chairmen and Secretaries of two rival
conventions present certified lists of
nominees for filinE the officer whose
duty it is to file such certificates should
determine which Of the two rival con-
ventions really represents the party and
file its certificate, rejecting the other,
notwithstanding it may be formally
correct and sufficient.
Delegates to political conventions dis
charge a trust with which the courts
do not meddle. They obey or disobey
instructions as they see fit, and the
only remedy for their disobedience is
the eensure of the people expressed at
the polls.
There is nothing unlawful in fusion.
The statute does not forbid it nor at
tempt to do SO. A statute which did
attempt it would be of very doubtful
validity. 1t is for the conventions of
different party organizations to decide
for themselves whether their principal
oh; "a nd
mount over minor issues as to justify
them in uniting upon a list of nominees
drawn from all parties so agreeing.
Even if they had nothing else in COM
mon except a desire to fill the offices,
there is no power to prevent Them from
combining for that object
According to universal party usage in
California the Central or Executive
Committee of a party has no func-
ton. after one election is over, except
to preserve the organization and take
the necessary preliminary steps for the
assembling of the next convention. 1t
has no right to forestall or in any man
ner limit or curtail the powers Of the
convention which it calls.
The character and politics of the can
didates are not the subject of inquiry
for the Secretary of State, but only for
the voters.
A fusion convention represents no
particular party A fusion ticket may
represent several particular parties, but
is none the less entitled to a place on
the official ballot for that reason.
Several conventions holding separate
sessions do not lose their identity by
selecting the same set of nominees.