Ex parte Anear
Ex Parte EDWARD ANEAR on Habeas Corpus
Headnotes
Summary
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.
Garoutte, J.
The prisoner aslcs to be discharged from custody upon habeas corpus. He was prosecuted and *371 convicted before a justice of the peace of Montezuma township, Solano county, for violating certain provisions of the fish and game law of this state, found in section 636 of the Penal Code as amended. (Stats. 1895, p. 262.) The statute declares a violation of any of the various provisions of that section to be a misdemeanor, and further declares that any person found guilty of a violation of any of its provisions shall be fined in a sum not less than one hundred dollars, or be imprisoned in a county jail in the county in which the conviction shall be had not less than one hundred days, or be punished by both such fine and imprisonment. The minimum punishment only being prescribed by the section, the justice’s court had no jurisdiction to try a defendant charged with a violation of its provisions. The jurisdiction of a justice’s court is limited to those cases where the punishment by imprisonment cannot exceed six months, nor the fine exceed five hundred dollars. This case does not come within that class, for the punishment administered in cases prosecuted under this section may be much greater. The . district attorney invokes the aid of section 19 of the Penal Code, but it is clear he gets no relief there. That section by its terms is only applicable to cases where no different punishment is prescribed, and here a different punishment is prescribed.
For the foregoing reasons the prisoner is discharged.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.