Year: 1871

SUPREME COURT.


It will be remembered that Brackett,
attorney for All Ying, appealed from the
decision of the District Court in the case,
and the Supreme Court thus decides:


People vs.. All Ying No. 2,932l. The
defendant was indicted for murder, and
the ease was called for trial at the regular
March term of the District Cou,t in and
for Shasta county, when, neither party
being ready for trial, the case was set for
trial on the 18th day OF April following, to
which time the Court was adjourned by an
order upon its minutes.


The April term of the Court in Trinity
county, which is within the same district,
intervened between the March term in
Shasta and the 18th day Of April, to which
the Court was adjourned. 1t does not
appear afirmatiyely whether the Court
was actually in session in Trinity county
on the 18th day of April or not. On that
day the Judge did not appear to hold
Court at Shasta, but the Clerk and Sheriff
under instructions from the Judge, ad
journed the Court from day to day for one
week. at the end of which time tie Judge
appeared and held Court, and the defend
ant was tried, against his objections, and a
conviction had 1t is claimed that the
Court was not then legally in session, and
the verdict and judgment, therefore, void.


he Act concerning the District Courts
of this State, passed March l, 1864, author
ICES the Court, by an order entered upon
its minutes, to adjourn to day certain,
although term for another county in the
same district may intervene, provided such
special term do not interfere with any
general term in the district. This, Think
contemplates an adjournment Of the gen
eral term over the intervening term in an
other county. 1t is not properly special
term, but continuation of the regular
term Section 73 Of the Act concerning
Courts Of justice of this State and judicial
officers, passed April20 1863 (Stats 1868,
p. 333), was intended, as has been held, to
prevent the loss ola term, if the Judge did
not appear on the day appointed to hold
Court. After the Judge has once appeared
and commenced to hold Court this section
has 30 application. IF it authorized the
adjournment from day to day by the Sheriff,
in the present case, it would authorize a
similar proceeding at any time in the term
when the Judge failed to appear and hold
Court. think the point well taken.


On the trial, at the request of the attor-
ney for the defendant, and against the OBJ
iections Of the District 4 ttorney, the Court
allowed evidence to be given as to the pres
>ent sanity of the defendant, and instructed
the jury that if they were satisfied, from
the evidence, that the defendant was (then)
insane, they would so find. There is no
plea Of present insanity required. If at
i any time doubt arose as to the sanity Of
the defendant, it was the duty of the Court,
Of its own motion, to suspend the trial or
! further proceedings in the case, at twhatever
stage the doubt arose. until the question of
/ sanity was determined. Common humani-
/ ty requires that one should not be tried for
/ his life while insane, and counsel for the
defendant cannot waive such inquiry when
/ the doubt exists, nor can he, by interposiug
/ such a plea, compel The Court to enter upon
such inquiry where no ground for such
doubt exists


/ The fact that evidence upon the subject
was allowed to go to thejury, and that they
were instructed to find verdict that the
defendant was then insane il they were
satisfied from the evidence that he was so,
implies doubt on the part the Court as
to his sanity. Under the provisions of the
Criminal Practice Act the trial should have
been suspended until that question was
settled


Judgment reversed and new trial order,
| ed