12 P.2d 133 | Cal. Ct. App. | 1932
The petitioner, charged by indictment with a violation of the Corporate Securities Act, applied for a writ of prohibition, following an adverse ruling upon a demurrer, and motion to dismiss, and asserts that said indictment was not founded upon sufficient evidence to warrant its rendition.
[1] It is familiar law that prohibition arrests the proceedings of a tribunal when such proceedings are without or in excess of its jurisdiction. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1102.) [2]
Jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine. It does not depend upon the regularity of its exercise, nor upon the correctness or justness of the decision of the court. The power to decide carries with it authority to decide wrongly as well as rightly. (Sherer v. Superior Court,
However, it is contended by the petitioner that in none of the cases considered had a motion to dismiss the indictment been interposed; that all of the evidence adduced before the grand jury was before the trial court, that such motion was made, and that there was none tending to show that she had committed a public offense. [5] We are impelled to hold that the court below was authorized to differ, but it is equally well settled that the validity of an *40
indictment cannot be attacked upon the mere ground of insufficiency of evidence to support it. (People v. Panagoit,
"It is true that section
The alternative writ of prohibition is discharged, and the peremptory writ is denied.
Works, P.J., and Fricke, J., pro tem., concurred.
A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the District Court of Appeal on June 30, 1932.