TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ex parte Cook

Ex parte Cook, 39 P. 16 (Cal. 1895)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 4, 1895
Docket
No. 21,197
Citations
39 P. 164 Cal. Unrep. 969
Disposition
Writ granted.
Syllabus
Justice of Peace—Jurisdiction of Crime in Another County.— A justice of the peace has no jurisdiction of the crime of embezzlement committed in another county.
Summary
Petition by Joseph E. Cook and Thomas E. Langley for habeas corpus and release from commitment by a justice of the peace.

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.

PER CURIAM.

Habeas corpus. Petitioners have been held to answer, after examination before a committing magistrate, for the crime of embezzlement, and ask to be discharged upon the ground that they were committed without reasonable or probable cause. The specific charge is that they embezzled certain fruit which was received by them in the county of Contra Costa under a contract by which they agreed to incur certain expenses for packing, shipping, etc., and to sell the fruit in Eastern markets for account of the growers on commission. The evidence in the deposition shows that they did with the fruit precisely what they contracted to do, but they failed to pay over to the growers the whole amount of their share of the proceeds. It is clear from the evidence that there was no embezzlement of the fruit. If any embezzlement has been committed it was of the proceeds, and was committed in San Francisco, and not in Contra Costa. The magistrate who issued this commitment (a justice of the peace of Contra Costa county) had no jurisdiction of the only offense which the evidence has the slightest tendency to establish. Prisoners discharged.

How later courts describe this case

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

1930: 119302026peak 1930 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Huber284 P. 509 (Cal. Ct. App. 1930)

Most recent

  1. In re Huber284 P. 509 (Cal. Ct. App. 1930)

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