TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ex parte Helbing

EX PARTE LOUIS HELBING, ON HABEAS CORPUS

Ex parte Helbing, 5 P. 103 (Cal. 1884)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 11, 1884
Docket
No. 20,025
Citations
5 P. 10366 Cal. 2151884 Cal. LEXIS 734
Syllabus
Habeas Corpus—Fraudulently Taking Water from Main—Sufficiency of Complaint.—Where a statute provides that it shall be a misdemeanor for any person to connect any pipe, tube, or other instrument with any water main or pipe for the purpose of fraudulently taking water therefrom, a complaint alleging a connection for such purpose, without charging that the connection was made by means of a pipe, tube, or other instrument, substantially follows the statute, and is sufficient.
Summary
Petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

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

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The Court

The complaint in the police court charged the offense created by section 499 of the Penal Code. That section *216 reads: “ Every person who, with intent to injure or defraud, connects, or causes to be connected, any pipe, tube, or other instrument with any main, service-pipe, or other pipe, or conduit, or flume for conducting water, for the purpose of taking water from such main, service-pipe, conduit, or flume, without the knowledge of the owner thereof, and with intent to evade payment therefor, is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

The complaint avers that Louis Helbing, “ with intent to injure and defraud, etc., without the knowledge of the owners, and with intent to evade payment for the water taken thereby, made connections, and maintained the same, with certain mains and service-pipes of the said Spring Valley Water Works for the purpose of taking water therefrom for the supply of certain tanks and water-works kept and maintained by said Helbing,” etc. The words “ without the knowledge of the owners ” apply to all that follows, including the averments as to the taking of the water, and the intent. The complaint does not in terms charge that the connection was made by means of a pipe, or a tube, or instrument. If it had averred that the defendant connected an “ instrument ” for the purpose of taking water, it would be good. It avers a connection for that purpose, and such connection, if made at all, could be made only by means of some instrument. It is said a connection (for the purpose named) might be made without, in fact, any water being taken; but so might an instrument fail of its purpose. A complaint following the statute is admittedly sufficient. Here the statute was substantially followed. The petitioner is remanded.

How later courts describe this case

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

1912: 12016: 119122026peak 1912 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People v. Burke122 P. 435 (Cal. Ct. App. 1912)
  2. People v. Davis3 Cal. App. 5th 708 (2016)

Most recent

  1. People v. Davis3 Cal. App. 5th 708 (2016)
  2. People v. Burke122 P. 435 (Cal. Ct. App. 1912)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list