People v. Kalloch

Indictment—Misdemeanor—Misconduct in Office—New City Hall Commissioners—Appeal—Jurisdiction of Supreme Court.—The defendants, as New City Hall Commissioners for the City and County of San Francisco, were indicted for misconduct in office: Held, This Court has jurisdiction of the appeal. Id.—Id.—Id.—Id.—Held further, The indictment is fatally defective.

Appeal from a judgment for defendants on demurrer, in the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. Freelon, J. The indictment was as follows: “ The People of the State of California against Isaac S. Kalloch, John P. Dunn, and John Luttrell Murphy, in the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, State of California, the fifth day of November, A. D. 1880. Isaac S. Kalloch, John P. Dunn, and John Luttrell Murphy are accused by the Grand Jury of the said City and County of San Francisco, by this indictment, of the crime of misdemeanor, committed as follows: During the months of February, March, April, May, and June, A. D. 1880, the said Isaac S. Kalloch was the Mayor, the said John P. Dunn was the Auditor, and the said John Luttrell Murphy was the City and County Attorney of the said City and County of San Francisco; and during the months last mentioned the said defendants, by virtue of their said respective offices, constituted the board known.as the Board of Mew City Hall Commissioners for the City and County of San Francisco; that according to the Act of the Legislature of California,- entitled ‘An Act to provide for the completion of. the building in the City and County of San Francisco,-known as the Mew City Hall,’ approved March 24, 1876, it was the duty of the said Commissioners to advertise for sealed proposals for work to be done upon the said building. Nevertheless, during the said months of February, March, April, May, and June, A. D. 1880, at the City and County of San Francisco, upon the building aforesaid, they, the said defendants, as Commissioners aforesaid, had a large amount of concrete work done without advertising for sealed proposals to do the same; and the omission of the said defendants, as Commissioners aforesaid, to make such advertisement was willful, and contrary to the form, force, and effect of the statute in such case made, and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the People of the State of California. D. L. Smoot, “District Attorney.”