284 P. 509 | Cal. Ct. App. | 1930
On the ninth day of December, 1929, the above-named petitioner was bound over to appear before the Superior Court of the county of Calaveras to answer a charge of burglary, and prosecutes this application to be discharged on the various grounds set out in section
1st. That a crime has been committed.
2d. That it has been committed within the county over which the committing magistrate has jurisdiction;
3d. That there is reasonable and probable cause to believe that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged. *316
Section
In the case of Ex parte Cook, 4 Cal. Unrep. 969 [39 P. 16], it is directly held that a magistrate in one county has no jurisdiction to issue a commitment for an offense committed in another county. In that case it was a justice of the peace acting as a committing magistrate. *317
Again, in the matter of the Application of Hartwell,
The case of State v. Jones,
[2] Nor is the case of People v. More,
In view of what we have stated it is unnecessary to consider the contention of the petitioner that the testimony fails to show any reasonable or probable cause that he committed the offenses charged, irrespective of the county in which it may have been committed.
The writ of habeas corpus applied for is hereby granted and the petitioner discharged from the custody of the sheriff of Calaveras County.
Thompson (R.L.), J., and Finch, P.J., concurred. *318