페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

a

tion 1495 of the Civil Code.-Allen v. Chatfield, 172 Cal. 60, 156 Pac. 47.

2. Section 2074 of the Code of Civil Procedure dispenses with the production and proffer of money, personal property or written instrument, when the same is described and tendered in the offer, if the offer is not accepted, and the provisions of section 2076 preclude one who receives a tender in writing without objection from afterward urging an objection with respect to the particular elements of a tender mentioned in the section, but neither of these sections dispenses with any other essential of a valid tender, or stops the person receiving such offer from afterward taking advantage of a lack thereof.-Allen v. Chatfield, 172 Cal. 60, 156 Pac. 47.

3. A premature offer or performance is ineffectual to put the other party in default, or for any other purpose.-Allen v. Chatfield, 172 Cal. 60, 156 Pac. 47.

§ 2077.

1. Descriptions of land-Rules for construing.-The addition of the description of a course by angles may well be rejected as being opposed to the description of a definite course well known and fixed.-Wheatley v. San Pedro, L. A. & S. L. R. Co., 169 Cal. 505, 147 Pac. 135.

2. Under the rule laid down in subdivision 6 construing the descriptive part of a conveyance, a map referred to in the description, when inconsistent with other particulars, controls the description if it appears that both parties acted with reference to it.Wheatley v. San Pedro, L. A. & S. L. R. Co., 169 Cal. 505, 147 Pac. 135.

3. Measurements always give way to monuments, and parol evidence can always be given to show that the actual distance is different from the distance given in the notes of survey.-Cords v. Goodwin, 173 Cal. 61, 159 Pac. 138.

4. A fence which the defendant in ejectment asserts has marked the boundary for forty years or more between his land and that of the plaintiff is a “monument."Perich v. Maurer, 29 Cal. App. 293, 155 Pac. 471.

8 2076. 1.

Objection to tender Construction, Section 2076 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not in direct conflict with the provisions of section 1501 of the Civil Code, to the effect that the failure to object does not waive a defect which the person making an offer could not then obviate if objections were then made thereto. This provision of section 1501 is to be construed as a qualification of section 2076.-Allen v. Chatfield, 172 Cal. 60, 156 Pac. 47.

$ 2102.

1. Questions of fact addressed to court. It is within the province of the court to construe the language used by the board of supervisors in describing the boundaries of a supervisorial district.-People v. Williams, 29 Cal. App. 552, 156 Pac, 882.

PENAL CODE.

§ 4.

provided for, and are not applicable in the

matter of city, town and county ordinances, 1. Construction of code. The various

-In re Isch, 53 Cal. Dec. 43, 162 Pac. 1026. sections of the code are to be read together and harmonized, if reasonably possible.

$ 19. People v. Pryal, 25 Cal. App. 779, 147 Pac. 114.

1. Punishment for misdemeanor not oth

erwise prescribed Construction.-An ordi87.

nance enacted by a board of supervisors

prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors DEFINITION OF WORDS AND PHRASES.

within the county outside of municipal cor1. Construction of section Subdivision 1.

porations, which prescribes as a penalty for 2, 3. —Subdivision 4.

the violation of the provisions of the ordi4. Corpus delicti.

nance a fine not exceeding six hundred dol1. Construction of section-Subdivision 1. lars, or an imprisonment in the county jail -When the word "willfully" is used in con- not exceeding seven months, is not void, as nection with a specific statement showing being in conflict with section 19 of the a purpose to injure another, it implies a Penal Code, which provides that "except in criminal intent, when the doing of that act cases where a different punishment is prewith that purpose is a criminal act.-People scribed by this code, every offense declared v, Okomoto, 26 Cal. App. 568, 147 Pac. 598. to be a misdemeanor is punishable by im

-Subdivision 4.—This does not define prisonment in a county jail not exceeding such "malice" as is defined in section 188. six months, or by a fine not exceeding five There can, however, be no prejudicial error hundred dollars, or by both."-In re Isch, 53 in giving both definitions in a prosecution Cal. Dec. 43, 162 Pac. 1026. for murder.--People v. Harris, 169 Cal. 53, 2. This section does not limit the pun145 Pac. 520.

ishment which may be fixed by a municipal 3. This code definition is applicable to all body as a penalty for the commission of cases where the word “malicious" is used as forbidden acts within the police power of a part of the definition of an offense. It is

the body:-People v. Fages, al. App. only in cases where in the description of the 137, 162 Pac. 137. offense some qualification is made as to the meaning of that term or as to the proof $ 22. thereof, that a defendant has a right to

DRUNKENNESS NO EXCUSE FOR CRIME. further instruction upon that subject. People v. Wilkinson, 30 Cal. App. 473, 158

1, 2. Evidence as to intoxication. Pac. 1067.

3-5. Instructions as to. 4. "Corpus delicti” means the body of

1. Evidence as to intoxication.—There is the offense, the essence of the crime.-Peo

no violation of the rule that proof of drunkple v. Wagner, 29 Cal. App. 363, 155 Pac. 649.

enness is admissible for the purpose set

forth in this section when the court re$ 15.

fused to permit a witness who had been Definition of "crime"-Construction.- drinking all day with defendant to testify A description, definition and denouncement to the number of drinks the defendant had of acts necessary to constitute a crime do taken just prior to the shooting, where the not make the commission of such act or witness had given his opinion that defendacts a crime unless a punishment be an- ant was drunk and the defendant himself nexed, for punishment is as necessary to was permitted to tell in detail how often constitute a crime as its exact definition.- and what he had drunk on that day.---People Matter of Ellsworth, 165 Cal. 677, 133 Pac. v. Allen, 166 Cal. 723, 137 Pac, 1148. 272.

2. Mere temporary mental derangement resulting from the use of intoxicants,

whether delirium tremens or a milder form, Punishment of felony, not otherwise can not operate to absolve one from liaprescribed-Construction.-Sections 18 and bility for a criminal act, and testimony dis19 of the Penal Code refer only to offenses closing such derangement is admissible only declared by the code of which they are a where the existence of a particular purpose, part (the Penal Code), and were designed motive or intent is a necessary element of solely to provide a penalty for any such the crime charged, and then it may be conoffense where no other penalty is specially sidered by the jury, not as the predicate for

1.

8 18.

the full exoneration of the accused, but solely to enable or assist them in determining the purpose, motive, or intent with which he committed the act.—People v. Goodrum, 31 Cal. App. 430, 160 Pac. 690.

3. Instructions to. An instruction bearing upon the defendant's alleged intoxicated condition at the time of the commission of the homicide, which after stating the rule promulgated by section 22 of the Penal Code, and also declaring that "no act committed by a person while in a state of voluntary intoxication is less criminal by reason of his having been in such condition," but that “whenever the actual existence of any particular purpose, motive or interest is a necessary element to constitute any particular species or degree of crime, the jury may take into consideration the fact that the accused was intoxicated at the time, in determining the purpose, motive or intent with which he committed the act," then declares that if the jury believed from the facts in the case that the defendant did kill the deceased or that the defendant was voluntarily intoxicated at that time, you shall find him guilty,is awkwardly phrased as to the italicized portion thereof, but is not subject to the construction that it assumes that the defendant did the shooting or that it in effect informs the jury that if they found the defendant was intoxicated at the time of the shooting they should find him guilty “regardless of whether he did the shooting."-People v. Wong Hing, 28 Cal. App. 230, 151 Pac. 1159.

4. No prejudicial error is committed in giving the following instruction: "No act committed by a person while in a state of voluntary intoxication is less criminal by reason of his having been in that condition, but, whenever the actual existence of any particular purpose, motive, or intent is a necessary element to constitute any particular species or degree of crime, the jury may take into consideration the fact that the accused was intoxicated at the time, in determining the purpose, motive, or intent with which he committed the act. It is a well settled rule that drunkenness is no excuse for crime. Insanity produced by intoxication does not destroy responsibility when the party, when sane and responsible, made himself voluntarily intoxicated; drunkenness forms no defense whatever to the fact of guilt, for when a crime is committed by a party while in a fit of intoxication, the law will not allow him to avail himself of his own gross vice and misconduct to shelter himself from the legal consequences of such crime. Such evidence can only be considered by the jury for the purpose of determining the degree of the crime, and for that purpose it must be received with great caution."-People v. Collis, 30 Cal. App. 656, 159 Pac. 229.

5. An instruction that temporary insanity produced by the voluntary

of intoxicating liquor is no excuse for the commission of crime is correct.-People v. Goodrum, 31 Cal. App. 430, 160 Pac. 690.

use

PART I.

OF CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS.

wise. -People v. Oxnam, 170 Cal. 211, 149 Pac. 165.

8 26.

1. Mental capacity to commit crime-Infant under fourteen (subd. 1).- A boy under fourteen years of age is presumed incapable of committing a crime, and if there is no evidence of his knowledge of the wrongful. ness of the act, he can not be regarded as an accomplice.-People v. Camp, 26 Cal. App. 385, 147 Pac. 95.

2. Where in a prosecution under section 288 a boy under fourteen was asked whether or not he knew the wrongfulness of the act, and the court sustained the objection on the ground that it was immaterial, there was no prejudicial error unless the counsel crossexamining called the attention of the court to the purpose of his question.-People v. Love, 29 Cal. App. 521, 157 Pac. 9.

-Mentally deficient (subd. 3).-One who has sufficient mental capacity to appreciate the character and comprehend the possible or probable consequences of his criminal act, is responsible to the law therefor and is to be adjudged accordingly, however deficient mentally he may be other

8 31.

1. Principals and accessories. The mere fact that the indictment charged the defendant solely as a principal is not sufficient to prevent his conviction as such principal, even though he acted as an accomplice or accessory.—People v. Liera, 27 Cal. App. 346, 149 Pac. 1004.

2. An instruction which declares as principals all persons concerned in the commission of the crime, whether they directly commit the act, or aid or abet (the statutory language being “aid and abet") in its commission, or not being present have advised and encouraged its commission is not prejudicially erroneous where the jury is also instructed that they must acquit the defendant unless they believe beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty that he had the intent and purpose to extort from, or rob, the prosecutor, or to exact money or lands from his relatives or friends.--People v. Fisher, 30 Cal. App. 135, 157 Pac. 7.

3.

TITLE IV.

OF CRIMES AGAINST THE ELECTIVE FRANCHISE.

$ 63. United States senator, candidate for, must not give or promise pecuniary aid to legislative

candidates [repealed). $ 63 12. Members of legislature shall not accept any valuable consideration (repealed).

8 63. UNITED STATES SENATOR, CANDIDATES FOR, MUST NOT GIVE OR PROMISE PECUNIARY AID TO LEGISLATIVE CANDIDATES [repealed].

History: Enactment approved March 9, 1899, Stats, and Amdts. 1899, p. 83; repealed April 24, 1917, Stats, and Amdts. 1917, p. 170. In effect July 27, 1917.

8 6312. MEMBERS OF LEGISLATURE SHALL NOT ACCEPT ANY VALUABLE CONSIDERATION [repealed].

History: Enactment approved March 9, 1899, Stats. and Amdts. 1899, p. 84; repealed April 24, 1917, Stats. and Amdts. 1917, p. 170. In effect July 27, 1917.

TITLE VII.

OF CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE.

CHAPTER III.

ESCAPES, AND AIDING THEREIN.

con

$ 109a. Escapes from state hospitals [new]. § 109a. ESCAPES FROM STATE HOSPITALS. Any person who wilfully assists any inmate of a state hospital to escape, or in an attempt to escape therefrom, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

History: Enactment approved May 5, 1917, Stats, and Amdts. 1917,

p. 275. in effect July 27, 1917. $ 113.

terial, but it is sufficient if it be so

nected with the fact directly in issue as to 1. Defacement of public record-What is.

have a legitimate tendency to prove or -The marking out of the entry of satisfac

disprove such fact by giving weight or probtion of a judgment by drawing lines across

ability to the testimony of a witness testifyit with a pen is a defacement of a public

ing thereto, or otherwise.—People v. Senerecord.-Newby v. Times-Mirror Co., 173 Cal.

gram, 27 Cal. App. 301, 149 Pac. 786. 387, 160 Pac. 233.

2. In a prosecution for receiving stolen 8 114.

goods the giving of false testin ny which

has the tendency to fix the time upon the 1. Defacing public records-Who guilty of.-Where a deputy county clerk at the re

person charged therewith and to show that quest of an individual defaces a public rec

the witness had no part in the transaction ord by marking out an entry of satisfaction

is material.- People v. Senegram, 27 Cal. of a judgment by drawing lines across it

App. 301, 149 Pac. 786.

3. with a pen both are equally guilty.-Newby

An instruction to the jury "that it is v. Times-Mirror Co., 173 Cal. 387, 160 Pac. not necessary to prove or establish all of 233.

the matters alleged and set up in the in

formation as constituting the charge of per§ 118.

jury against the defendant herein: It is suf

ficient if you believe from the evidence PERJURY.

beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecu1-4. Elements of.

tion has proven that any of the matters 5. Evidence of.

charged in the information were so sworn 1. Elements of.-In order to constitute to or testified to by the defendant on the the crime of perjury, the matter sworn to occasion of his testifying as a witness as need not be directly and immediately ma- charged in the information, and that the

« 이전계속 »