Case Name: In the Matter of AH SING for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1909-09-30
Citations: 156 Cal. 349
Docket Number: Crim. No. 1565
Parties: In the Matter of AH SING for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 156
Pages: 349–349

Head Matter:
[Crim. No. 1565.
In Bank.
September 30, 1909.]
In the Matter of AH SING for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Habeas Corpus—Criminal Law—Complaint in Inferior Court.—The question whether a complaint in a court of limited or inferior jurisdiction states facts sufficient to constitute a public offense may be determined on habeas corpus.
APPLICATION for a Writ of Habeas Corpus directed to the Sheriff of San Diego County.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
A. J. Morganstein, for Petitioner.

Opinion:
THE COURT.
The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied for the reason that so far as we can see the complaint in the justice's court, under which petitioner is in custody, clearly states a public offense under the laws of this state. In view of the statement in the petition for the writ to the effect that a difference of opinion exists among the courts of this state as to the right of a court on habeas corpus to determine the question whether a complaint in a court of limited or inferior jurisdiction states facts sufficient to constitute a public offense, it appears proper to say that the rule in this state in that regard is correctly stated in Ex parte Greenall, 153 Cal. 767, 770, [96 Pac. 804], in which case it is plainly pointed out that the rule is different from the one applied to courts of general jurisdiction, as in Ex parte Ruef, 150 Cal. 665, [89 Pac. 605], An examination of the opinion in the case of Tobias Watkins, 3 Pet. (U. S.) 193, cited in the Greenall case, will disclose grounds for this distinction.