Ex Parte Hoar

Ex Parte E.H. Hoar, Upon Habeas Corpus.

Ex Parte Hoar, 79 P. 853 (Cal. 1905)

Court: California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided: January 31, 1905
Docket: No. Crim. No. 1232.
Judges: Beatty
Citations: 79 P. 853146 Cal. 1321905 Cal. LEXIS 495

Cited by 9

Headnotes

Contempt—Befusal to Answer Interrogatories—Order not Showing Jurisdiction—Habeas Corpus.—An order ajudging a district attorney in contempt of court for refusal “to answer certain interrogatories after having been ordered to do so by the court,” and committing him for contempt “until he shall answer said interrogatories,” is wholly insufficient to show jurisdiction to make the order, and he will he discharged from custody upon habeas corpus. Id.—Special Jurisdiction in Cases of Contempt—Authority to Be Shown by Becokd.—In cases of contempt every court exercises a special and limited jursidiction, and the authority to impose a fine or term of imprisonment must be shown by the record of conviction. Id.—Official Notes of Beporter not Part of Becord.—The official reporter’s notes of the proceedings leading up to the order are no part of the record.

Summary

APPLICATION by E. H. Hoar, District Attorney of Merced County, to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for discharge upon writ of habeas corpus from custody of the sheriff under an order of the Superior Court of Merced County adjudging him guiltjt of contempt. E. N. Rector, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the chief justice.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Beatty

*133 BEATTY, C. J.

On petition of E. H. Hoar, alleging that he was unlawfully imprisoned by the sheriff of Merced County, a writ of habeas corpus was issued and has been duly served and returned. Both by the petition and the return an attempt has been made to raise questions of some importance relating to the procedure in criminal cases, and to those questions the argument of counsel has been mainly directed. The case, however, does not call for a decision or any discussion of those questions, for it is clear upon the face of the sheriff’s return that whichever contention might be sustained it would equally follow that the prisoner must be discharged.

The only authority for his detention is a certified copy of the following order:— “Minutes of the Superior Court. Merced County. Tuesday, Jan. 24th, 1905. Present: Hon. E. N. Rector, Judge.

“The People of the State of California v. P. A. Robinson.

“The defendant and respective counsel return into court.

“E. H. Hoar, district attorney, is sworn and examined as a witness for the defense, but refuses to answer certain interrogatories after being ordered to do so by the court, and he is again adjudged to be in contempt of court, and the court orders that he be committed to the county jail until he shall answer said interrogatories.”

In cases of contempt every court exercises a special and limited jurisdiction, and its authority to impose a fine or term of imprisonment must be shown by the record of conviction. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1211;

Overend v. Superior Court, 131 Cal. 284 , and cases cited.)

This order is wholly insufficient to show jurisdiction, and the official reporter’s notes of the proceedings leading up to the order are no part of the record.

The petitioner is discharged.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 9 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Chula v. Superior Court368 P.2d 107 (Cal. 1962)
State ex rel. Rankin v. District Court191 P. 772 (Mont. 1920)
Vaughn v. Municipal Court252 Cal. App. 2d 348 (1967)
Lapique v. Superior Court229 P. 1010 (Cal. Ct. App. 1924)
In re Smith65 Cal. App. 3d 291 (1976)
Egilbert v. Superior Court91 P. 748 (Cal. Ct. App. 1907)

Most recent

In re Smith65 Cal. App. 3d 291 (1976)
Vaughn v. Municipal Court252 Cal. App. 2d 348 (1967)
Chula v. Superior Court368 P.2d 107 (Cal. 1962)
Farnham v. Superior Court188 Cal. App. 2d 451 (1961)
Nelson v. Superior Court287 P.2d 535 (Cal. Ct. App. 1955)
Ex parte Paniagua33 P.R. 863 (1925)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Overend v. Superior Court, 63 P. 372 (Cal. 1900)	59

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list