*1 procedure, provisions applying ized none of the code procedure felony cited prosecutions which have been any application proceedings were had is, right superior said, court. as we have attempted appeal judgment bail from the superior nothing slightest court. There is indicate in the degree superior jurisdiction court was without judgment render the which the is con- under now discharged peti- fined. For these reasons the and the tioner is custody remanded to the of the sheriff of Ventura County for judgment, execution forth in set the return.

Desmond, J., J., Wood, P. concurred. No. 3995. Dist.,

[Crim. Second Three. Feb. Div. 1946.] HERBERT SORRELL, Petitioner, K. THE v. SUPERIOR

COURT COUNTY, OF Respondents. LOS ANGELES *2 Omerberg Maynard J. Bodle, & Esterman Pestaña for Petitioner. Howser, Attorney, Sullivan and and Jere

Fred District Attorney, Respon- Wheeler, Deputies District for Robert G. dents. applied to this court

THE COURT. Herbert K. Sorrell procure 1946, for a of habeas February 14, writ on judgment de- a his release confinement under court, con- charges nine guilty clared him restraining the sisting of a order issued the violation of that he Angeles County, and ordered Superior of Los Court jail pay fines county 16 serve a total alleged petition aggregating $1,700. issued and com- upon which the citation was

affidavits ascer- facts could be mitment itself stated no from which that there any contempt committed and had been tained at was no evidence him that he had knowl- upon order been served had strength of Upon edge as to what acts were restrained. petition, we issued writ these of the verified hearing it February returnable on 20. At time transcript developed procured had not trial, had been commenced the evidence taken by rendition 18, 1945, December been concluded had A re- January 9, continuance was judgment on 1946. testimony quested by until such time No the trial could be transcribed furnished the court. showing transcript by peti- had been made that a ordered arrangement or that an had been made tioner his counsel reporter payment for the with the his fees. motion for continuance denied. file with this court Herbert K. challenged review, juris-

Sorrell for a which he contempt proceeding diction of the trial court grounds urged as those for his release habeas ex- corpus. had been denied. It contained as copy hibits a which was copies violated verified an order to contempt, show cause re some affidavits charging order by violations others nine different between October 17, 1945, sheriff, by October deputy, affidavit of the showing restraining order, summons, service of the com- plaint, and thereto, affidavits attached order to show cause petitioner Sorrell, also authorities stating he, deputy sheriff, had read *3 speaker points upon plain- show cause over a loud at several premises in presence pickets persons tiff’s of the assembled, announcing a deputy sheriff. Also copy petition attached to the for a writ review was a judgment containing a full recital of the facts found imposing pictures sentence. The affidavits included were taken of some of the crowds assembled at the studio entrances, marching in in such numbers and such close for- prevent passing persons mation as and from the studio. in affidavits described detail numerous acts of intimi- dation, violence, physical combat, aas result of which within a more non- persons, few than strikers and surgical strikers, required were medical and to receive atten- by injuries. tion reason of their It was shown that picket lines, Sorrell marched in the directed the activities pickets, engaged fights. of the in fist each On question in pickets deadly armed weapons, threw missiles, engaged in riotous and uncontrollable conduct. stipulated by district attor- ney petition review, including for writ exhibits and authorities, should be in considered having this court in proceeding the habeas been and as a support offered argued, matter sheriff’s return. The traverse to the adjourned duly considered, the court for de- evidence was liberation, bench, and announced its decision resumed substantially orally out, as hereinafter set and the same part opinion. hereby adopted as a By The labors of the court in this matter Justice Shinn: considerably study have been facilitated which we given to the for a have heretofore review. pre- We became familiar the record which has sented petition. consideration It is now ruling pro- the desire of the court to make a present ceeding express ruling, generally and to reasons opinion may amplify be followed a written Merely ruling. reasons which the court announces for the as preliminary to a statement, more extended feel we proper general to make a brief review the situation which will be the opinion foundation of the written to fol- which is questions low. The presented quite simple. for decision are complaint plaintiff here, Bros., Warner filed on the of October, 1945, against Painters’ Local No. seeking injunctive and certain defendants, relief against picketing, spe- mass and certain acts which were cifically complaint described in the and which consisted of the use of against force and plaintiff, threats em- ployees and its effect, customers and which it was alleged, plaintiff’s closed studio and business. On an the same was made for a and an order why injunction cause issued, should not be based complaint the verified and certain affidavits filed there- with. A and it was issued restrained the conduct of following particulars: defendants number that were allowed to be at stationed vari- ous entrances ranged to the two to four required kept apart to be at least 10 feet *4 certain from entrances, compre- distances the studio and hensive terms the defendants restrained all acts from of threats, intimidation, violence, and peace breaches the other conduct prevent employees which would be calculated entering leaving customers of place of business. appli- On the 19th of October a verified cation by was made for a citation in contempt, supported some 21 additional affidavits. The was verified alleged Obringer, and it plaintiff, one

by an officer of the day large pickets assembling on the of a number violence, breaches of October and commission force, fear peace, of the the use of intimidation and if plaintiff, which allowed employees and customers plaintiff’s effectually closed business. to continue would of the- filing complaint the issuance alleged alleged October; on 6th of deputy speaker a loud restraining order read over assembled, and that were sheriff to the crowd of Sorrell, the main hearing presence premises. entrance to the and at other on served that defendant Sorrell was although restraining order, alle- deputy sheriff with the gations reading and the service with reference to the on It then order were information belief. alleged, October, 1945, the said de- day “That on the 6th main- again formed, and fendants formed or caused to be of, maintained, at, tained or in front and across caused to be approxi- said main line picket entrance of said studio respects mately pickets, picket line all at, in same or similar to that maintained said defendants on front of main to said studio and across said entrance 5, 1945, an additional October as aforesaid.” There was allegation temporary subsequent to the service of the subsequent defendants, public aforesaid, to the announcement as “in temporary of said restrain- disobedience violation ing order maintain the said maintained and continued to picket lines, line or consisting approximately pickets, at, in front of and main entrance to said across said respects studios in the manner in all same similar to the thereof said 6th maintenance 1945, prior Herbert K. Sor- the said service said rell of temporary restraining said order and the aforesaid public temporary restraining order announcement succeeding the terms In thereof.” counts substantially the as- allegations the same with reference to speci- semblage lines the several maintenance fied Bach of con- specific count was itself, duct clearly reference would and without to conduct on the restrain- days, constitute a violation of ing *5 contempt cause, citation, was served

The to result of had, as a which and a upon petitioner charges contempt nine of of court guilty he was found of 17th between the 6th committed including charges constituting of conduct inclusive, contempt on and 16th of October. There were the 15th specific days, exception that on all these with the 16th, personally present and the 15th finding participating picketing. in also a that in the conduct strike and the maintenance and of said studios, picket said mass at the entrance of lines acting in leader, concert said Herbert K. Sorrell was a with and said other leaders the conduct said strike line. broadly by petitioner that the affi contended davits which the citation was issued were insufficient in violation of charge to acts which were him order or to advise of the nature of the acts charged, which he that the court was therefore jurisdiction objection proceed without to matter. matters substance cannot be reference charging to exhibits in an affidavit acts of constructive con tempt allegations therefore the one as so-called count allegations respect cannot aided reference to occasions, to acts other set out other so-called counts. We shall not purpose at this time discuss the is served in issuing affidavits the court which a con- tempt insufficiency allegations citation. The Obringer application petitioner assumes, do exist. Counsel for has stated that the court excluded all as to what day October, occurred on the 5th argues that there proof was therefore a failure sus- allegations tain the which described the acts of defendants as the same or similar to those on the committed 5th. The Obringer application was verified and it was evidence as to charged the acts day. to have been committed affidavits, additional 20 in number, some were evidence of violation order on the days to they related, namely, working the several days, excluding 16th, 15th between October 6th and stated, allegations October 17th. As we have as to the separate conduct defendants each were insuf- charge ficient violation order without reference to other as to conduct as to create claimed uncertainties were such None of to the acts with which doubt con jurisdiction of the court. is also to affect justify the no evidence whatever there was tended charges which related conviction days October; words, the 15th and *6 charge him with the court that would no before evidence was days. There place took on those for what any responsibility petitioner line or that that evidence was no 16th, 15th or there was evi but he days and acts of violence picketing on those massed dence of findings days. The upon other to those committed similar designated they Judge are criticized because Ashburn charged persons conspiracy, as whereas conduct conspiracy conspiracy in the affidavits. But a persons charged in the When a number of affidavits. accomplish a purpose a common intent and to assemble with objective, jointly single and when act and definite accomplishing objective purpose for the that concert accomplish you to it—when things do which are calculated things complete you produced proved those have evi Obringer conspiracy. Paragraph affi of a III of the dence alleges the 5th the said davit or caused to assembled near or defendants assembled vicinity purpose of the studio 750 for the blocking off from with the intent of all entrances to exits vicinity said studio and all traffic whatsoever nature officers, preventing plaintiffs, of said studio and em any persons entering or ployees, customers and and all leaving studio, compelling close said to operations thereof, studio and cease all therein and etc. There allegations of a common and intent and there purpose allegations in each count of concerted action with the joined in purpose petitioner intent. This therein, conspiracy actively participated movement and remaining responsibility by and he could not evade absent couple days. If there to sustain was evidence findings to as conduct on the other than 15th and 16th, to there was evidence sustain responsibility for the acts on those committed actively It has not been contended that did not participate in picketing. court is familiar with the affidavits contained in for a writ of review. state the substance them or unnecessary discuss an abundance there was say than further them partici only an active he it, not because leader activity, but a pant in this strike pickets themselves authority by the granted had been assembled men who were otherwise, because but leadership. The affidavits upon his recognized and acted a member he was entirely immaterial whether that. It is those were what his duties or what strategy committee only evidence, strategy were. committee leadership responsible evidence, he had is that shown It was him for directions. looked to these strikers merely himself to did not confine the affidavits that Sorrell engaged par actively supervisory activities, but that place the strikers between fighting that took ticipated in the nonstriking employees. question of service. come to the We now no evidence that there was stated in the for the writ served with the had been the officer who delivered that the affidavit of contended himself that he identified failed to state process *7 making he service the fact that was or disclosed petitioner papers delivery of the argued mere it is process, of is contended that there did also not constitute valid service. knowledge had of the terms petitioner was evidence that no When argument merit. of The is without the order. complaint or a restrain consisting process, of summons defendant, to and left with ing order, personally handed doubt there are circum been made. No valid service has per deceptive, act service of would stances which here. no intentionally so, have such situation haps but we people are as countless This was served day. that he con It was found process every served 6th after he line on October was in the tinued to march con not to have argued that he was shown served, but it is duty his had read the order. was after he tinued to sodo immediately he had been served with whether to find out he activity where should restraining He in an was restrain him. The action to anticipated some court trouble, long any gone time without picketing had they as right to believe that when these had no but in such themselves numbers and conducted sembled such of studio and the" business manner as to close the against there action would not be some court taken them. The activity such that nature should have process, anticipating the service of addition to that, restraining there was the fact that the order was read deputy speaker, sheriff over appeared the loud his filed the application affidavit for the con tempt judge citation. The no doubt believed that the restraining here heard the order read he before was served. served,

The nor question here is whether this man was whether knew or not know the restrain- he did nature of the ing him, order that was served nor whether he com- mitted acts contempt these As to court. all these question matters the is whether there substantial evi- dence or questions an absence of evidence fact judge. doubt, that were decided the trial no We have however, as to the correctness of the as to suf- ficiency petition- service and as knowledge er’s the contents order and participation in disregard several order. There abundance of evidence questions opinion all of these and we are of the question there presented is not even a close any as to them. allegation for a habeas that the commitment does not nor of con- do the affidavits tempt upon which any said commitment facts was based state from which it can be ascertained was com- allegation. allegation hearing is a false mitted that at the order was served upon petitioner any knowledge had as to what acts allegation. restrained is a false

Desmond, P. J. For the reasons stated Mr. Justice Shinn, my colleague, Mr. I Wood, Justice concur in time, decision the court at this and that discharged writ will be and the remanded custody sheriff, and his bail exonerated.